Freshwater Supply: States' View of How Federal Agencies Could	 
Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Shortages (09-JUL-03,  
GAO-03-514).							 
                                                                 
The widespread drought conditions of 2002 focused attention on a 
critical national challenge: ensuring a sufficient freshwater	 
supply to sustain quality of life and economic growth. States	 
have primary responsibility for managing the allocation and use  
of water resources, but multiple federal agencies also play a	 
role. For example, Interior's Bureau of Reclamation operates	 
numerous water storage facilities, and the U.S. Geological Survey
collects important surface and ground-water information. GAO was 
asked to determine the current conditions and future trends for  
U.S. water availability and use, the likelihood of shortages and 
their potential consequences, and states' views on how federal	 
activities could better support state water management efforts to
meet future demands. For this review, GAO conducted a web-based  
survey of water managers in the 50 states and received responses 
from 47 states; California, Michigan, and New Mexico did not	 
participate.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-514 					        
    ACCNO:   A07122						        
  TITLE:     Freshwater Supply: States' View of How Federal Agencies  
Could Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Shortages	 
     DATE:   07/09/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Data collection					 
	     Environmental monitoring				 
	     Water conservation 				 
	     Water resources conservation			 
	     Water resources development			 
	     Water supply management				 
	     Surveys						 
	     Federal/state relations				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-514

                                       A

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2003 FRESHWATER SUPPLY States* Views of How Federal Agencies Could
Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Shortages

GAO- 03- 514

Contents Transmittal Letter 1 Executive Summary 3

Purpose 3 Background 4 Results in Brief 5 Principal Findings 7 Agency
Comments and Our Evaluation 11

Chapter 1 12

Introduction Water Is an Abundant and Renewable Resource but Not Always

Readily Available 12 The Federal Government Has Authority to Manage Water
Resources

but Recognizes State Authorities 19 State Laws Governing Water Allocation
and Use Generally Follow Two Basic Doctrines 21

Multiple Federal Agencies Have Water Management Responsibilities 26
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 41

Chapter 2 44

Freshwater Availability National Water Availability and Use Has Not Been
Assessed

in Decades 44 and Use Is Difficult

Trends in Water Availability and Use Raise Concerns about the to Forecast,
but Trends Nation*s Ability to Meet Future Needs 48 Raise Concerns about
Meeting Future Needs

Chapter 3 64

Expected Freshwater State Water Managers Expect Shortages within 10 Years
64

Freshwater Shortages Have Severe Economic, Environmental, and Shortages
May

Social Consequences 67 Harm the Economy, the Environment, and Communities

Chapter 4 76

Federal Activities Conclusions 88

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 89 Could Further Support State Water

Management Efforts Appendixes

Appendix I: GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal
Activities on State Water Availability, Management, and Use 90

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior 109

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 110 Figures Figure 1:
Water Sources, Volumes, and Percentages of Total Water 12

Figure 2: The Hydrologic Cycle 14 Figure 3: Percent Time in Severe and
Extreme Drought

Nationwide, 1895 to 1995 16 Figure 4: Drought Conditions across the Nation
as of July 23, 2002 18

Figure 5: Doctrines Used by States to Govern Surface- Water Allocation 23
Figure 6: Doctrines Used by States to Govern Ground- Water

Allocation 25 Figure 7: Overview of Federal Activities 27 Figure 8:
Reclamation*s Hoover Dam and the Corps* Eufaula Lake Water Storage
Facilities 29

Figure 9: USGS* Nationwide Streamgage Network 33 Figure 10: Number of
Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

by State, as of March 2003 36 Figure 11: Colorado River Basin Crosses
Seven State Borders 38 Figure 12: Federal and Tribal Lands in the United
States 40 Figure 13: Trends in Water Withdrawals by Use Category, 1950-
1995 45

Figure 14: Projections of United States Water Use for 2000 47 Figure 15:
Number and Capacity of Large Reservoirs Completed

by Decade 49

Figure 16: Estimated Percentage of Population Using Ground- Water as
Drinking Water in 1995 by State 51 Figure 17: Changes in Ground- Water
Levels in the High Plains Aquifer from before Irrigation Pumping to 1999
53

Figure 18: Sinkhole in West- Central Florida Caused by Development of a
New Irrigation Well 54 Figure 19: Land Subsidence in South- Central
Arizona 55 Figure 20: States* Population Growth from 1995 to 2025 58
Figure 21: Total Freshwater Withdrawals by County, 1995 59 Figure 22:
Extent of State Shortages Likely over the Next Decade

under Average Water Conditions 65 Figure 23: The Everglades* Past and
Present 71 Figure 24: Competition for Water in the Klamath Basin 74

Abbreviations

USDA U. S. Department of Agriculture USGS U. S. Geological Survey

This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

July 9, 2003 Trans Let mi er t al t t The Honorable Pete V. Domenici
Chairman Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate

The Honorable James M. Jeffords Ranking Minority Member Committee on
Environment and Public Works United States Senate The Honorable Mike Crapo
Chairman The Honorable Bob Graham Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate

In response to your requests, this report identifies current conditions
and future trends for U. S. water availability and use, the likelihood of
shortages and their potential consequences, and state views on how federal
activities could better support state water management efforts to meet
future needs. While we are not making a specific recommendation, we
encourage Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior,
Corps, and Environmental Protection Agency officials to review the results
of our state survey and consider modifications to their plans, policies,
or activities as appropriate to better support state efforts to meet their
future water needs.

We will send copies of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture,
Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, and Interior; the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Civil Works; and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency. We will also send copies to the states that
participated in our review. This report will also be available on GAO*s
Web si te at http:// www. gao. gov.

Please contact me at (202) 512- 3841 if you or your staff have any
questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.
Barry T. Hill Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Executive Summary Purpose The widespread drought conditions of 2002
focused attention on a critical challenge for the United States* ensuring
a sufficient freshwater supply

to sustain quality of life and economic growth. Yet droughts are only one
element of this complex issue. Water availability and use depend on many
factors, such as the ability to store and distribute water, demographics,
and

social values. Across the nation, there is increasing competition to meet
the freshwater needs of growing cities and suburbs, farms, industries,
recreation and wildlife.

States are primarily responsible for managing the allocation and use of
freshwater supplies. However, federal laws provide for control over the
use of water in specific cases, such as on federal lands or in interstate
commerce. Many federal agencies engage in activities, such as operating
large water storage facilities and administering federal environmental
protection laws, that influence state decisions. Federal agencies
generally coordinate their activities with the states and complement state
efforts to manage water supplies. On occasion, however, these activities
conflict with state or other user objectives, such as when the need to
leave water in a river to protect fish under federal environmental laws
affects the delivery of irrigation water to farmers.

To assist congressional understanding of the range and complexity of
freshwater supply issues, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works asked GAO to identify (1) current conditions
and future trends for U. S. water availability and use, (2) the likelihood
of shortages and their potential consequences, and (3) state

views on how federal activities could better support state water
management efforts to meet future demands. To conduct this review, we
focused on water supply and generally assumed a continuation of existing

quantity allocations and current pricing conditions. Among other things,
GAO conducted a Web- based 50- state survey of state water managers and
obtained responses from 47 states; California, Michigan, and New Mexico
did not participate. GAO also met with state water managers in seven
geographically dispersed states* Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington. GAO*s complete scope and
methodology is described in chapter 1.

Background Freshwater flows abundantly in the nation*s lakes, rivers,
streams, and underground aquifers. However, because of climatic conditions
and other

factors, water is not always available when and where it is needed or in
the amount desired. Users with different interests and objectives, such as
agricultural irrigation or municipal water supply, must share the
available water, and users may not always get the amount of water they
need or want, particularly in times of shortage. Competition for water and
the

potential for conflict grow as the number of users increases and/ or the
amount of available water decreases, and conflicts can extend across state
or national borders. Federal, state, local, tribal, and private interests
share responsibility for developing and managing the nation*s water
resources within a complex web of federal and state laws, regulations and
contractual obligations. State laws predominantly govern the allocation
and use of water. The federal government has recognized the primacy of
states* laws regarding

water allocation and use in numerous acts, such as the Reclamation Act and
the Clean Water Act, and the Supreme Court has ruled that states* laws
govern the control, appropriation, use, and distribution of federal
reclamation project water.

Federal agencies engage in five basic categories of activities that
influence state water resource management decisions:

 Constructing, operating and maintaining water storage infrastructure,
primarily through the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the
Department of the Interior*s (Interior) Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation).

 Collecting and disseminating data on water availability and use,
primarily through Interior*s U. S. Geological Survey (USGS).

 Administering clean water and wildlife protection laws, primarily
through agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Commerce*s (Commerce) National Marine Fisheries Service, and
Interior*s U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

 Assisting in the development and implementation of water management
compacts and treaties, often involving multiple federal agencies.

 Managing water resources on federal lands by, for example, Interior*s
Bureau of Land Management and the U. S. Department of Agriculture*s (USDA)
Forest Service, and protecting tribal water rights by Interior*s Bureau of
Indian Affairs.

Results in Brief The last comprehensive national water availability and
use assessment, completed 25 years ago, identified critical problems, such
as shortages

and conflicts among users. Future water availability and use is difficult
to predict. For example, while USDA*s 1999 forecast of future water use*
not availability* projects a rise in total withdrawals of only 7 percent
by 2040, it also warns of the tenuous nature of such projections. If the
most important and uncertain assumptions used in USDA*s projection, such
as

a decrease in irrigated acreage, fail to materialize, water use may be
substantially above the estimate. Current trends indicate that demands on
the nation*s water resources are growing. While the nation*s capacity for
storing surface- water is limited and ground- water is being depleted,
demands for freshwater are growing as the population increases, and

pressures increase to keep water instream for fisheries, wildlife habitat,
recreation, and scenic enjoyment. For example, ground- water supplies have
been significantly depleted in many parts of the country, most notably

in the High Plains aquifer underlying eight western states, which in some
areas now holds less than half of the water held prior to commencement of
ground- water pumping. Meanwhile, according to Bureau of the Census

projections, the southwestern states of California, New Mexico, Arizona,
and Nevada, states that are already taxing their current water supplies,
are each expected to see their population increase by more than 50 percent
from 1995 to 2025. Furthermore, the potential effects of climate change
create additional uncertainty about future water availability and use. For

example, less snow pack as a result of climate change could harm states
that rely extensively on melted snow runoff for their freshwater supply.

State water managers expect freshwater shortages in the near future, and
their consequences could be severe. According to the results of GAO*s
survey, even under normal water conditions, water managers in 36 states
anticipate water shortages in localities, regions, or statewide within the

next 10 years. Under drought conditions, 46 managers expect shortages in
the next 10 years. Such shortages may be accompanied by severe economic,
environmental, and social impacts. While no studies have measured the
total economic impact of shortages, recent shortages have resulted in
damages to specific segments of the economy. For example, in the summer of
1998, a drought that ranged from Texas to the Carolinas

resulted in an estimated $6 to $9 billion in losses to the agriculture and
ranching sectors. Water shortages can also result in environmental losses:
damages to plant and animal species, wildlife habitat, and water quality.
For example, diminished flows into the Florida Everglades have resulted in

significantly reduced habitat for the wildlife population and a 90 percent
reduction in the population of wading birds. Water shortages can also
raise social concerns, such as conflicts between water users, reduced
quality of life, and give rise to the perception of inequities in the
distribution of disaster relief assistance. Many of these impacts are
evident in the

federally- operated Klamath Project* dams, reservoirs, and associated
facilities* that sits on the California- Oregon border. Here, under
drought conditions, several federal agencies* including Reclamation, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service* are
trying to balance the water needs of, among others, irrigators, who
receive water

from the project, and endangered fish, which must have sufficient water to
survive. In 2002, thousands of fish died while water was delivered for
agricultural irrigation; the prior year, farmers experienced crop losses
while water was used to maintain stream flows for fish.

In responding to our Web- based survey, state water managers identified
the potential federal actions that would most help them meet their states*
water needs. Water managers from 47 states ranked their preferences within
each of the five basic categories of federal activities. First, state
water managers favored more federal financial assistance to plan and

construct additional state water storage and distribution capacity and
also favored more consultation with the states regarding the operation of
federal storage facilities. Second, state managers favored having federal
agencies collect water data in more locations to help them determine how
much water is available. Third, state managers favored federal efforts to
provide flexibility in how they comply with or administer federal
environmental laws as well as consultation on these laws* development,
revision, and implementation. Fourth, state managers favored improving
coordination of federal agencies* participation with the states in water
management agreements and increasing technical assistance to states in
developing and implementing them. Finally, state managers favored more
consultation with states on how federal agencies or tribal governments

use their water rights, and increased financial and technical assistance
to determine the amount of federal water rights. Federal officials
identified current activities within each of these areas that support
state efforts and explained that while some state preferences, such as
funding for storage construction, would require congressional
authorization, others can be

addressed through ongoing efforts to enhance communication and
cooperation. Appendix I contains the results of the survey.

Principal Findings Water Availability and

The U. S. Water Resources Council completed the most recent, Use Trends
Raise Concerns comprehensive, national water availability and use
assessment in 1978. 1 about Meeting Future Needs That assessment found
that parts of the nation had inadequate water supplies and growing demand,
resulting in water shortages and conflicts among users. The most recent
forecast of future water use* but not availability* is USDA*s 1999
estimate for 2040. This forecast projects a rise in total withdrawals of
only 7 percent despite a 41- percent increase in

the nation*s population. Yet the forecast also warns of the tenuous nature
of such projections. For example, if the most important and uncertain
assumptions used in USDA*s projection, such as irrigated acreage, fail to
decrease as assumed, water use may be substantially above the estimate.

Current trends* such as declining ground- water levels and increasing
population* indicate that the freshwater supply is reaching its limits in
some locations while freshwater demand is increasing. Specifically, the
building of new, large reservoir projects has tapered off, limiting the
amount of surface- water storage, and the storage that exists is
threatened by age and sedimentation. Significant ground- water depletion
has already occurred in many areas of the country; in some cases the
depletion has permanently reduced an aquifer*s storage capacity or allowed
saltwater to intrude into freshwater sources. Tremendous population
growth, driving

increases in the use of the public water supply, is anticipated in the
Western and Southern states, areas that are already taxing existing
supplies. Demand to leave water in streams for environmental, recreational
and water quality purposes add to supply concerns. Finally, some experts
expect that climate change will affect water supply conditions in all
regions of the country, either through increased demands associated with
higher temperatures or changes in supply because of new precipitation or

runoff patterns. 1 The Council, established by the Water Resources
Planning Act in 1965 (P. L. 89- 80), comprising the heads of several
federal departments and agencies, such as Interior and the Environmental
Protection Agency, has not been funded since 1983.

State Water Managers Under normal water conditions, state water managers
in 36 states Expect Freshwater

anticipate water shortages locally, regionally, or statewide within the
Shortages in the Near

next 10 years, according to GAO*s survey. Under drought conditions, the
Future, Which May Have number grows to 46. Water managers expect these
shortages because of Severe Consequences

depleted ground- water, inadequate access to surface- water, and growing
populations, among other conditions, and despite ongoing actions to
address their current and future water needs, such as: planning to prepare
for and respond to droughts; assessing and monitoring water availability
and withdrawals; and implementing water management strategies, such

as joint management of surface and ground- water resources. In addition,
water managers are reducing or reallocating water use, and developing or
enhancing supplies by increasing water storage capacity, or less
conventionally, seeding clouds to increase winter precipitation and
developing saltwater desalination operations to produce freshwater.

If the anticipated water shortages actually occur, they could have severe
economic, environmental and social impacts. The nationwide economic costs
of water shortages are not known because the costs of shortages

are difficult to measure. However, Commerce*s National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration has identified eight water shortages from
drought or heat waves, each resulting in $1 billion or more in monetary
losses over the past 20 years. For example, the largest shortage resulted

in an estimated $40 billion in damages to the economies of the Central and
Eastern United States in the summer of 1988. Water shortages can also have
environmental impacts, damaging plant and animal species, wildlife
habitat, and water quality. The Florida Everglades experience illustrates

how dramatically reduced water flows can alter an ecological system. In
1948, following a major drought and heavy flooding, the Congress
authorized the Central and Southern Florida Project* an extensive system
of over 1, 700 miles of canals and levees and 16 major pump stations* to

prevent flooding, provide drainage, and supply water to South Florida
residents. This re- engineering of the natural hydrologic environment
reduced the Everglades to about half its original size and resulted in
losses of native wildlife species and their critical habitat. In social
terms, water shortages can create conflicts between water users, reduce
quality of life, and create perceptions of inequities in the distribution
of impacts and disaster relief. Federal experiences in operating the
Klamath Project on the California- Oregon border, illustrate the conflicts
that can arise when shortages occur. Farmers who rely on irrigation water
from the project claim that Reclamation*s attempts in 2001 to manage water
for fish survival resulted in crop losses, while environmentalist,
fishermen, and tribal representatives claim that subsequent actions by
Reclamation in 2002 to

provide water for farmers resulted in low river flows, contributing to the
death of more than 30,000 fish. As a result, litigation over river flows
is ongoing, and federal and state legislation has been enacted to address
the

financial damages of the various parties. State Water Managers

To identify potential federal actions to help states address their water
Identified Potential Federal challenges, GAO sought the views and
suggestions of state water managers.

Actions to Help Them Meet Water managers from 47 states ranked actions
federal agencies could take Future Challenges

within five basic categories of federal activities:  Planning,
constructing, operating, and maintaining water storage

and distribution facilities. State water managers reported their highest
priority was more federal financial assistance to plan and construct their
state*s freshwater storage and distribution systems and also favored
having more input in federal facilities operations.

For example, over the next 10 years, 26 states are likely to add storage
capacity, and 18 are likely to add distribution capacity. Consequently,
water managers in 22 states said that more federal financial assistance
would be most useful in helping their state meet its water storage and

distribution needs. Reclamation and Corps officials understand the states*
need for financial assistance for storage and distribution projects, and
provide financial assistance on a project- by- project basis, as Congress
authorizes and appropriates funds.

 Collecting and sharing water data. According to 37 states, federal
agencies* data are important to their ability to determine the amount of
available water. Managers in 39 states ranked expanding the number of
federal data collection points, such as streamgage sites, as the most
useful federal action to help their state meet its water information
needs. Officials at USGS, USDA*s Natural Resources Conservation Service,
and Commerce*s National Weather Service have ongoing efforts and/ or plans
to expand or improve their data collection programs.

 Administering federal environmental protection laws. According to 23
state water managers, more flexibility in how they comply with or
administer federal environmental laws would help states meet their
obligations under the laws while also meeting their water management
goals. The managers cited instances in which they believed that federal
environmental laws had restricted the state*s ability to develop new

storage capacity, distribute water, or meet the needs of offstream users.
Officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and

Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service said they try
to accommodate state concerns about federal environmental laws, but were
obligated to ensure that the laws are complied with and administered as
Congress intended. However, they also stated that their agencies use the
flexibility they have under current law to help the states administer or
comply with federal environmental laws.

 Participating in water- management agreements. In the 29 states that
participate in an interstate or international water- management agreement,
state water managers ranked better coordination of federal

agencies* participation in the agreements as the most useful among
potential federal actions to help states develop, enforce, and implement
such agreements. Seven of these managers said that federal agencies had
not fulfilled their responsibilities under interstate or international
agreements during the last 5 years. In these cases, the managers pointed

out that lack of coordinated federal actions* such as the failure to
establish federal priorities in a river basin* have created uncertainty
for state participants in water- management agreements. Reclamation and
Corps officials stated that in most cases they have fulfilled their
responsibilities under water- management agreements, but occasionally
circumstances outside their control, such as funding, prevent them from

carrying out these responsibilities. Nevertheless, these officials stated,
their participation in water- management agreements could be improved
through their ongoing efforts to enhance coordination and communication
with states and other water resource stakeholders, thus assisting in the
implementation of water- management agreements.

 Managing water rights for federal and tribal lands. Of the 31 state
managers reporting that federal agencies or tribal governments claim or
hold water rights (either state granted or federal reserved) in their
state, 12 reported that the most helpful potential federal action would be
to consult more with the states on federal or tribal use of these rights,
and

16 indicated that their state had experienced a conflict within the last 5
years between a federal agency*s use of its water rights and the state*s
water management goals. For example, a federal agency had challenged the
state over ground- water rights the state had issued to users because

the withdrawals threatened federal surface- water rights. Disputes related
to a federal agency*s use of state- granted rights are typically heard in
state water courts, where the federal agency receives no preference over
any other water right holder.

While states have principal authority for water management, federal
activities and laws affect or influence virtually every water management
activity undertaken by states. Although the state managers value the many
contributions of federal agencies to their efforts to ensure adequate
water supplies, they also indicate that federal activities could better
support their

efforts in a number of areas. The information we collected from state
water managers should be useful to the federal agencies in determining how
their activities affect states and how they can be more supportive of
state efforts to meet their future water needs. While we are not making a
specific recommendation, we encourage Agriculture, Commerce, Energy,
Homeland Security, Interior, Corps, and Environmental Protection Agency
officials to review the results of our state survey and consider
modifications to their plans, policies, or activities as appropriate to
better

support state efforts to meet their future water needs. Appendix I
contains the full survey results.

Agency Comments and We provided copies of our draft report to the
Departments of Agriculture,

Our Evaluation Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Interior; the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The

Department of the Interior concurred with our findings and provided
technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. Interior*s
complete letter is in appendix II. The other departments and

agencies concurred with our findings and provided technical
clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. They did not provide
formal, written comments.

Chapt 1 er Introduction Freshwater flows abundantly through the nation*s
lakes, rivers, streams and underground aquifers. Nature regularly renews
this precious resource, but users do not always have access to freshwater
when and where they need it, and in the amount they need. To make more
water available and usable throughout the United States, federal agencies
have built massive water storage projects and engage in other water
development, management, and regulatory activities. Federal agencies have
control over water use in some cases, such as on federal lands or in
interstate commerce, but state laws predominantly govern water allocation
and use.

Water Is an Abundant Water is one of the earth*s most abundant resources*
covering about

and Renewable 70 percent of the earth*s surface. However, accessible
freshwater makes

up less than 1 percent of the earth*s water. As shown in figure 1, about
Resource but 97 percent of the water on the planet is in the oceans and
too salty to drink

Not Always or to use to grow crops. Another 2 percent is locked away in
glaciers and

Readily Available icecaps, virtually inaccessible for human use.

Figure 1: Water Sources, Volumes, and Percentages of Total Water

Water is also a renewable resource* the water that was here a million
years ago is still here today, continuously moving back and forth between
the earth*s surface and atmosphere through the hydrologic cycle, as figure
2 shows. In this cycle, evaporation occurs when the sun heats water in
rivers, lakes, or the oceans, turning it into vapor or steam that enters
the atmosphere and forms clouds. The evaporative process removes salts and

other impurities that may be picked up either naturally or as a result of
human use. When the water returns to earth as rain, it runs into streams,
rivers, lakes, and finally the ocean. Some of the rain soaks below the
earth*s

surface into aquifers composed of water- saturated permeable material such
as sand, gravel, and soil, where it is stored as ground- water. When water
returns to earth from the atmosphere as snow, it usually remains atop the
ground until it melts, and then it follows the same path as rain. Some
snow may turn into ice and glaciers, which can hold the water for hundreds
of years before melting. The replenishment rates for these sources vary
considerably* water in rivers is completely renewed every 16 days on

average, but the renewal periods for glaciers, ground- water, and the
largest lakes can run to hundreds or thousands of years.

Figure 2: The Hydrologic Cycle

The United States has plentiful water resources. Rainfall averages nearly
30 inches annually, or 4, 200 billion gallons per day throughout the
continental 48 states. Two- thirds of the rainfall rapidly evaporates back
to the atmosphere, but the remaining one- third flows into the nation*s
lakes, rivers, aquifers, and eventually to the ocean. These flows provide

a potential renewable supply of about 1, 400 billion gallons per day, or
about 14 times the U. S. Geological Survey*s (USGS) most recent estimate
of daily consumptive use* the amount of water withdrawn from, but not

immediately returned to, a usable water source. 1 Much larger quantities
of freshwater are stored in the nation*s surface and ground- water
reservoirs. Reservoirs created by the damming of rivers can store about
280, 000 billion gallons of water, lakes can hold larger quantities, and
aquifers within 2,500 feet of the earth*s surface hold water estimated to
be at least 100 times reservoir capacity.

Despite the abundance and renewability of the water supply, variability in
the hydrologic cycle creates uncertainty in the timing, location and
reliability of supplies. For example, while rainfall averages 30 inches
annually nationwide, the average for specific areas of the country

generally increases from west to east, from less than 1 inch in some
desert areas in the Southwest to more than 60 inches in parts of the
Southeast. Drought and flood are a normal, recurring part of the
hydrologic cycle. Meteorological droughts, identified by a lack of
measured precipitation, are difficult to predict and can last months,
years, or decades. 2 As shown in figure 3, at least some part of the
United States has experienced severe or

extreme drought conditions every year since 1896. Therefore, regions will
encounter periods when supplies are relatively plentiful, or even
excessive, as well as periods of shortage or extreme drought.

1 USGS fully defines consumptive use as water that has evaporated,
transpired (e. g., from vegetation), incorporated into products or crops,
consumed by humans or livestock, or otherwise removed from the immediate
water environment.

2 While meteorological measurements are the first indicators of drought,
other definitions of drought exist. For example, agricultural drought
occurs when there is not enough moisture in the soil to meet the needs of
a particular crop at a particular time, hydrological drought refers to
deficiencies in water supplies, and socioeconomic drought is associated
with supply and demand for water as an economic good.

Figure 3: Percent Time in Severe and Extreme Drought Nationwide, 1895 to
1995

The variability in water availability was evident during 2002, when the
United States had warmer than normal temperatures and below- average
precipitation, which led to persistent or worsening drought throughout
much of the nation. As the year began, moderate to extreme drought covered
one- third of the nation and expanded to cover more than half of the
nation during the summer, as shown in figure 4. Subsequently, heavy

rainfall during July in Texas alleviated some of the drought conditions
but led to widespread flooding. In addition, above average rainfall from
September through November brought significant drought relief to the
Southeast, where more than 4 years of drought had affected much of the
region from Georgia to Virginia. However, severe drought conditions
persisted over most of the interior Western states and the central and
northern plains, with abnormal dryness across the Midwest through the end
of the year.

Figure 4: Drought Conditions across the Nation as of July 23, 2002

Water resource issues tend to be local or regional. Water flows naturally
within river basins. USGS recognizes 352 river- basins in the United
States that typically encompass 5,000 to 20,000 square miles. However,
even within river basins, the availability of water resources varies.
Sharing the water within basins is usually possible, but poses challenges
because water ignores jurisdictional boundaries and these jurisdictions
may have competing interests. Therefore, distributing water from where it
is to where it is needed may require the coordination of local, regional,
state,

federal, and even foreign interests. Transferring water from one basin to
another is even more complicated, since water generally cannot be moved
between basins unless transfer facilities (i. e., canals, pipelines, and
pumps) are constructed. Moreover,

in most cases, river basin boundaries do not coincide with those of major
underground aquifer systems. For this reason, numerous entities are
involved in the many aspects of water resource planning, management,
regulation, and development, and solutions to water- management problems
are often not easily found.

The Federal The federal government has authority to manage water
resources, but it Government Has

recognizes the states* authority to allocate and use water within their
jurisdictions. Federal authority is derived from several constitutional
Authority to Manage sources, among them the Commerce Clause 3 and the
Property Clause. 4 The

Commerce Clause permits federal regulation of water that may be involved
Water Resources

in or may affect interstate commerce, 5 including efforts to preserve the
but Recognizes

navigability of waterways. 6 The Property Clause permits federal
regulation State Authorities

of water as necessary for the beneficial use of federal property. 7 In
addition, 3 U. S. Const. art. I, S:8, cl. 3. 4 U. S. Const. art. IV, S:3,
cl. 2. 5 See e. g., United States v. Byrd, 609 F. 2d 1204, 1210 (7th Cir.
1977); Utah v. Marsh,

740 F. 2d 799, 803 (10th Cir. 1984). 6 United States v. Rio Grande
Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690, 703 (1898).

7 Id.

under the Compact Clause of the Constitution, states cannot enter into
agreements, or compacts, with each other* including those for the
management of interstate waters* without the consent of Congress. 8
Federal laws often require federal agencies engaged in water resource
management activities to defer to state laws or cooperate with state
officials in implementing federal laws. For example, under the Reclamation
Act, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), within the Department of

the Interior, must defer to and comply with state laws governing the
control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water unless applying the
state*s law would be inconsistent with an explicit congressional directive

regarding the project. 9 Similarly, the Water Supply Act of 1958
recognizes nonfederal interests in water supply development. The act
states: *It is declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize the
primary responsibilities of the States and local interests in developing
water supplies for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other purposes and
that the Federal Government should participate and cooperate with States
and local interests in developing such water supplies in connection with*
Federal navigation, flood control, irrigation, or multiple purpose
projects.* 10

Other federal laws have affirmed this recognition. 11 8 U. S. Const. art.
I, S:10, cl. 3. 9 43 U. S. C. S: 383; California v. United States, 438 U.
S. 645 (1978). 10 43 U. S. C. S: 390b. 11 See, e. g., the McCarran
Amendment, 43 U. S. C. S: 666, which waives U. S. sovereign immunity and
allows the federal government to be sued in state court to determine its
rights to the use of water in a river system or other source. Both the
Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U. S. C. S: 1251( g) et seq., and the
Endangered Species Act, 16 U. S. C. S: 1531 et seq., state that it is the
policy of Congress that federal agencies cooperate with state and

local agencies to resolve water resource issues.

Consequently, federal agencies have traditionally followed a policy of
deferring to the states for managing and allocating water resources.
Officials of federal agencies involved in water resources management

recently reiterated that their role is providing assistance while
recognizing state primacy for water allocation. For example, in November
2001 testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works,

the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works stated: *I want to
emphasize that Corps involvement in water supply is founded in deference
to state water rights. During the enactment of the Flood Control Act of
1944, Congress made clear that we do not own the water stored in our
projects* Our policy is to continue our

commitment to consistency with state water law* we must respect the
primacy of state water law.*

The Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation echoed this approach in his
testimony at the same hearing, stating that it is important to emphasize
the primary responsibility of local water users in developing

and financing water projects, with Reclamation playing the important roles
of maintaining infrastructure and applying expertise to help locals meet
water needs. Specifically addressing Western water challenges in

August 2002, he stated: *As in the past, Reclamation will continue to
honor State water rights* working with the states, our partners and all
water users to leverage resources, to work at collaborative problem
solving and to develop long- term solutions.*

State Laws Governing The variety of state water laws relating to the
allocation and use of water

Water Allocation and can generally be traced to two basic doctrines: the
riparian doctrine and

the prior appropriation doctrine. Under the riparian doctrine, water
rights Use Generally Follow are linked to land ownership* owners of land
bordering a waterway have Two Basic Doctrines a right to use the water
that flows past the land for any reasonable purpose. Landowners may, at
any time, use water flowing past the land even if they have never done so
before; all landowners have an equal right to use the

water and no one gains a greater right through prior use. In contrast, the
prior appropriation doctrine does not link water rights with land
ownership. Water rights are instead linked to priority and beneficial
water use* parties who obtain water rights first generally have seniority
for the use of water over those who obtain rights later, and rights
holders must put the water to beneficial use or abandon their right to use
the water. Simply put, *first in time, first in right* and *use it or lose
it.* When there is a water shortage, under the riparian doctrine all water
users share the shortage in

proportion to their rights, while under the prior appropriation doctrine,
shortages fall on those who last obtained a legal right to use the water.
For managing surface- water allocation and use, Eastern states generally
adhere to riparian doctrine principles and Western states generally adhere
to prior appropriation doctrine principles. We obtained information on the

water management doctrines of 47 states from our 50- state Web- based
survey of state water managers. As shown in figure 5, 16 states follow
either common- law riparian or regulated riparian (state permitted)

doctrine, 15 states follow prior appropriation doctrine, 13 states follow
other doctrines, and 2 states do not regulate surface- water allocation.
12 12 Three states did not respond to our survey, and one state was
uncertain.

Figure 5: Doctrines Used by States to Govern Surface- Water Allocation

WA NH

ND VT

ME MT MN

OR WI

NY MA

ID SD

MI WY

RI PA

CT NE

IA NJ

NV UT IL

IN OH

DE CO

WV VA

MD CA

KS MO

KY NC TN

AZ NM

OK AR

SC MS

AL GA

TX LA

AK FL

HI

Category Number of states in category

Does not regulate (2) No response or uncertain (4) Other doctrine (13)
Prior appropriation (15) Riparian (16)

Source: GAO analysis of state water managers' responses to GAO survey.

Special rules apply to allocating ground- water rights, but most state
approaches reflect the principals of prior appropriation or riparian
doctrines, with some modifications that recognize the unique nature of
ground- water. As shown in figure 6, 18 states follow the riparian-
derived doctrine of reasonable use; 12 states follow the prior
appropriation doctrine; 13 states follow other approaches, such as
granting rights to water beneath property to the landowners (absolute
ownership) or dividing

rights among landowners based on acreage (correlative rights); and 3
states do not regulate ground- water allocation. 13

13 Three states did not respond to our survey, and one state was
uncertain.

Figure 6: Doctrines Used by States to Govern Ground- Water Allocation

Multiple Federal Many federal agencies play a role in managing the
nation*s freshwater Agencies Have Water resources, as shown in figure 7.
They build, operate and maintain large

storage and distribution facilities; collect and share water availability
and Management

use data; administer clean water and environmental protection laws; assist
Responsibilities

in developing and implementing water- management agreements and treaties;
and act as trustees for federal and tribal water rights. In performing
these activities, each federal agency attempts to coordinate with other
federal agencies and state water managers and users.

Figure 7: Overview of Federal Activities

Data collection:

Agencies collect and share information on streamflow,

Water storage facilities:

groundwater levels, precipitation, snowpack, and long- term climate
Agencies construct, operate, and trends.

maintain dams, reservoirs, and water distribution facilities.

Water rights: Water management agreements:

Agencies hold water rights for lands they manage and act as Agencies play
a variety of roles trustees for tribal water rights. in developing and
implementing international treaties and boundary

interstate compacts.

lands lands

international Federal

Tribal or

State Environmental protection:

Agencies administer and implement laws such as the Endangered Species Act
and the Clean Water Act.

Water table Aquifer

Bedrock

Source: GAO.

Reclamation and the Corps Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers
construct, operate, and maintain

of Engineers Manage Large large facilities to store and manage untreated
water, such as Reclamation*s

Water Storage Facilities Hoover Dam in Arizona and the Corps* Eufaula Lake
in Oklahoma

(see fig. 8). 14 While federal facilities compose only about 5 percent of
the estimated 80,000 dams in the nation, they include many of the largest
storage facilities, holding huge quantities of water for a wide variety of
purposes, such as irrigation, industrial and municipal uses. 15
Reclamation*s water delivery quantities are usually specified under long-
term contracts at subsidized prices, while the Corps provides water
storage space in reservoirs under long- term contracts.

14 For information on national needs for drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure, see U. S. General Accounting Office, Water Infrastructure:
Information on Financing, Capital Planning, and Privatization, GAO- 02-
764 (Washington, D. C., May 5, 1999).

15 Other federal agencies have facility management responsibilities not
directly related to water storage and distribution. For example, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency within the Department of Homeland
Security is responsible for coordinating dam safety efforts, and the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission* an independent five- member
commission appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate*
licenses and regulates non- federal hydropower projects.

Figure 8: Reclamation*s Hoover Dam and the Corps* Eufaula Lake Water
Storage Facilities

(A) The Bureau of Reclamation completed Hoover Dam, located on the
Colorado River at the Nevada- Arizona border, in 1936. The dam and Lake
Mead provide flood control protection, navigation improvement, water
storage and delivery, and hydroelectric power production.

(B) The Army Corps of Engineers completed the dam and powerhouse at
Eufaula Lake, located on the Canadian River in eastern Oklahoma, in 1964.
The dam and Eufala Lake provide flood control protection, navigation
improvement, water storage, and hydropower production.

(A) Las Vegas

Lake Meade NV Hoover Dam

OK (B)

Indicates the location of the identified dams and lakes within each state.

Tul sa Eufaula Lake

Sources: Bureau of Reclamation and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (photos
and captions) ; MapArt and Art Explosion ( topographical and U. S. maps) .

Reclamation has constructed irrigation, water storage, and distribution
facilities throughout the 17 Western states. Today, these facilities serve
many additional purposes, including municipal and industrial water
supplies, power generation, recreation, and flood control. Reclamation
manages about 348 reservoirs, with a total storage capacity of 245 million
acre- feet of water, and approximately 250 diversion dams that provide
water to approximately 9 million acres of farmland and nearly 31 million
people. 16 Reclamation also manages about 18, 000 miles of water delivery
facilities and operates a variety of additional facilities, such as pumps
and

structures for fish passage, to meet the needs of water users. Reclamation
no longer operates and maintains all of the facilities that it has built.
It has transferred operation and maintenance responsibilities for many of
the facilities it owns* primarily to irrigation districts. 17 Typically,
Reclamation has retained operation and maintenance responsibilities for
water facilities that are large, serve multiple purposes, or control water
diversions across state or international boundaries. Reclamation currently
has only one ongoing water storage or distribution construction project:
the Animas- La Plata project in Southwest Colorado and Northwest New
Mexico, which will store and deliver water to two Indian tribes and others
for irrigation, municipal and industrial uses. 18 Congress has authorized
but not funded additional Reclamation water resources projects, such as
the Dixie Project in Utah, which was originally authorized in 1964.

Through its Civil Works Program, the Corps constructed and now operates
and maintains water storage facilities across the nation. 19 Corps
projects originally were intended to control floods and provide for
navigation, but Congress has since expanded the agency*s mandate to store
water for some municipal, industrial, irrigation, recreation, and/ or
hydropower uses. Today, the Corps manages 541 reservoirs with a total
storage capacity of

16 An acre- foot is the amount needed to cover an acre of land with 1 foot
of water, sufficient to meet the needs of a family of four for 1 year. 17
According to the Reclamation officials, the agency has transferred
operation and maintenance responsibilities for 415 water storage and
delivery facilities since Reclamation constructed them.

18 For more information, see U. S. General Accounting Office, Animas- La
Plata Project: Status and Legislative Framework, GAO/ RCED- 96- 1
(Washington, D. C., Nov. 17, 1995). 19 Unlike Reclamation, the Corps does
not own or operate water distribution facilities.

330 million acre- feet, of which about 15 percent is jointly used for
irrigation and other purposes, and another 3 percent for municipal and
industrial uses. Although municipal, industrial, and agricultural water
supply storage

is a small portion of total storage capacity, the Corps estimates that the
facilities supply water to nearly 10 million people in 115 cities. The
Corps has rarely undertaken construction of new water storage facilities
since the 1980s. In accordance with the 1986 Water Resources Development
Act, the Corps has transferred to non- federal interests the operation and
maintenance responsibilities for the one storage facility it has
constructed since 1986.

In addition to Reclamation and the Corps, federal agencies responsible for
managing natural resources* such as USDA*s Forest Service, and Interior*s
Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park
Service* also construct water facilities on their lands to support their

agencies* objectives, and authorize the construction of facilities by
other parties on their lands. 20 Interior*s Bureau of Indian Affairs,
acting as trustee for tribal interests, authorizes similar facilities on
tribal lands. The dams on these federal or tribal lands are typically much
smaller than those operated by Reclamation and the Corps; many are not
inventoried unless they meet certain size or hazard criteria. More
specifically:

 Forest Service lands contain about 2,350 inventoried dams to provide
water for many purposes such as fire suppression, livestock, recreation,
and fish habitat;

 Bureau of Land Management lands contain about 1, 160 dams, primarily
providing water for livestock and wildlife;  the Fish and Wildlife
Service has an estimated 15, 000 water storage and

distribution facilities, primarily to provide water for fisheries as well
as for waterfowl and migratory bird habitat;  the National Park Service
has 451 dams within its boundaries to manage water for habitat, fire
suppression, flood control and recreation; and

20 Non- federal parties also construct and operate water storage projects
on federal lands. Federal natural resource agencies issue permits for
these activities. For example, the National Park Service issued a permit
to the City of San Francisco to construct and operate, within the Yosemite
National Park, Hetch Hetchy reservoir, the primary water source for

the city.

 the Bureau of Indian Affairs owns an estimated 500 to 1, 000 dams that
control flood and erosion and manage water for irrigation, flood control,
stockwater, and recreation.

Several Agencies Collect Several federal agencies collect and distribute
information on water and Share Water Data

availability and use including surface- water, ground- water, rainfall,
and snowpack. Interior*s USGS is primarily responsible for collecting,
analyzing, and sharing data on water availability and use. It collects,
analyzes, and shares information on surface- water availability, ground-
water availability, and water use through four programs:

 The National Streamflow Information Program collects surface- water
availability data through its national streamgage network, which
continuously measures the level and flow of rivers and streams at 7,000
stations nationwide, as shown in figure 9, for distribution on the
Internet.

 The Ground- Water Resources Program collects information from about 600
continuous ground- water- monitoring stations in 39 states and Puerto Rico
for distribution on the Internet. In addition, the agency manually
collects ground- water data intermittently in thousands of locations;
compiling and reporting this data can take months.

 The National Water Use Information Program compiles extensive national
water use data collected from states every 5 years for the purpose of
establishing long- term water use trends.  The Cooperative Water Program
is a collaborative program with states

and other entities to collect and share surface and ground- water data.

Figure 9: USGS* Nationwide Streamgage Network

Commerce*s National Weather Service and USDA*s Natural Resources
Conservation Service combine their data, together with USGS streamgage
data, to forecast water supplies and floods. They post water supply
forecasts twice a month on the Internet, and they provide daily, and

sometimes hourly, flood forecast information to water storage facility
management agencies and other interested parties through arranged
communication channels. The National Weather Service measures rainfall
with over 10, 000 gages nationwide, providing data for weather and climate
forecasts; it also collects snowfall data in cities and rural areas. The
Natural Resources Conservation Service operates 670 automated, high-
elevation

snow and climate measurement sites in 12 states; these sites use advanced
radio technology to report data on the Internet about once each day. The
agency also periodically conducts manual surveys at about 1, 000 other
stations; it supplies data from these sites to federal and non- federal
water managers who request it.

Federal agencies often collect water data or conduct water resources
research in support of their own responsibilities. For example, both the
National Park Service and the Forest Service collect streamflow data to
supplement USGS* streamgage information; the Bureau of Indian Affairs

conducts some research on water availability on tribal lands as a part of
the agency*s trust responsibilities to tribes; Reclamation and the Corps
collect data on reservoir levels and water flows through their facilities;
and Agriculture*s Agricultural Research Service and Cooperative State
Research Education and Extension Service conduct and fund water quantity
and quality research.

Several Agencies Several federal agencies administer clean water and
environmental

Administer Clean Water protection laws that affect water resource
management. The

and Environmental Environmental Protection Agency administers the Clean
Water Act, as Protection Laws

amended* the nation*s principal federal law regulating surface- water
quality. States and localities play a significant role in its
implementation. Under the act, among other things, municipal or industrial
parties that discharge pollutants must meet the regulatory requirements
for pollution control. 21 The Environmental Protection Agency administers
a permit system that requires control of discharges to meet technology
and/ or water quality based requirements. In addition, the act requires
parties that dispose of dredge or fill material in the nation*s waters,
including wetlands, to obtain a permit from the Corps. 22 Furthermore, the
act requires states to develop and implement programs to control non-
point sources of pollution,

which include run off from chemicals used in agriculture and from urban
areas. 23 The Clean Water Act can affect available water supplies, for
example, by reducing offstream use or return flows to address water
quality concerns.

21 33 U. S. C. S:1311( a). 22 33 U. S. C. S:1344( a), (d). 23 33 U. S. C.
S:1329.

Interior*s Fish and Wildlife Service and Commerce*s National Marine
Fisheries Service are responsible for administering the Endangered Species
Act. This act requires federal agencies to ensure that any action they
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any listed species of plant or animal or adversely modify or
destroy designated critical habitat. 24 The Fish and Wildlife Service is
responsible for administering the act for land and freshwater species, and

the National Marine Fisheries Service is responsible for marine species,
including Pacific salmon, which spend part of their lifespans in
freshwater. To implement the act, the agencies identify endangered or
threatened species and their critical habitats, develop and implement
recovery plans for those species, and consult with other federal agencies
on the impact that their proposed activities may have on those species. If
the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service finds
that an agency*s proposed activity will jeopardize an endangered or
threatened species, then a *reasonable and prudent alternative* must be
identified to ensure the species is not jeopardized. 25 Numerous
endangered species rely on the nation*s waters, as shown in figure 10. The
Endangered Species Act can

affect water management activities, for example, by necessitating certain
stream flow levels to avoid jeopardizing listed species or critical
habitat.

24 16 U. S. C. S:1536( a)( 2). 25 16 U. S. C. S:1536( a)( 3)( a).

Figure 10: Number of Listed Threatened and Endangered Species by State, as
of March 2003

(13) (18)

Sources: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (data) and GAO (analysis).

Agencies Help Develop States enter into agreements* interstate compacts*
to address water

and Implement allocation, quality, and other issues on rivers and lakes
that cross state

Water- Management borders. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, at
least 26 interstate Agreements

compacts address river water allocation between two or more states; 7
address water pollution issues; and 7 address general water resource
issues, including flood control. Federal agencies may assist in developing
and implementing these compacts, provide technical assistance, participate
in and consult with oversight bodies, develop river operating plans, act
as stewards of tribal and public natural resources, and enforce compacts.
For example, the Supreme Court appointed the Secretary of Interior as the
River Master responsible for implementing the water allocation formula of
the 1922 Colorado River Compact. Under the

compact, the states of the Upper Colorado River Basin (Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming), as shown in figure 11, are required to deliver
to the states of the Lower Basin (Arizona, California, and Nevada) a
minimum of 75 million acre- feet of water over 10- year periods.

Figure 11: Colorado River Basin Crosses Seven State Borders

Source: Bureau of Reclamation.

Through international treaties with Canada and Mexico, the United States
can coordinate activities such as water allocation, flood control, water
quality, and power generation activities, as well as resolve water related
disputes along the nations* international borders. The 1909 Boundary Water
Treaty established the International Joint Commission of the United States
and Canada, and the 1944 Water Treaty with Mexico provided the
International Boundary and Water Commission with the authority to carry
out the treaty. These bi- national commissions help the member nations

coordinate water management activities, monitor water resources, and
resolve disputes. For example, the International Boundary Water Commission
recently facilitated an agreement between Mexico and the United States
regarding Mexico*s water debt under the treaty.

Agencies Are Responsible Numerous federal natural resources management
agencies and the Bureau for Federal and Tribal

of Indian Affairs are trustees for the water rights of federal and tribal
lands. Water Rights The states grant the great majority of water rights to
these agencies, but the agencies also have federal reserved rights. The
federal government has reserved water rights to fulfill the purposes of
federal lands such as national forests, national parks, and wildlife
refuges and for tribal lands. Federal lands account for 655 million acres,
or 29 percent, of U. S. lands,

primarily in the Western states as shown in figure 12.

Figure 12: Federal and Tribal Lands in the United States

WASHINGTON MONTANA

VERMONT MAINE

NORTH DAKOTA OREGON

NEW WISCONSIN

HAMPSHIRE SOUTH DAKOTA

NEW YORK MASSACHUSETTS

IDAHO MINNESOTA

WYOMING MICHIGAN

RHODE ISLAND IOWA

PENNSYLVANIA NEVADA

NEBRASKA CONNE

CTICUT OHIO

ILLINOIS INDIANA

DC NEW

UTAH COLORADO

JERSEY CALIFORNIA

MISSOURI WEST

VIRGINIA VIRGINIA

DELAWARE KANSAS

KENTUCKY MARYLAND

NORT H CAROLINA

OKLAHOMA ARKANSAS

TENNESSEE ARIZONA

NEW MEXICO SOUT

H CAROLINA GEORGIA ALABAMA

TEXAS MISSISSIPPI

LOUISIANA ALASKAHAWAII

FLORIDA ALASKA

Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of Defense, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, National
Park Service, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agricultural Research Service,
Department of Energy, and Department of Transportation

Source: National Atlas of the United States.

The exact number and amount of federal reserved rights are not known.
However, Bureau of Land Management officials estimate that 20 percent of
the agency*s water rights are federally reserved, largely for underground
springs. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that it has very few
federally reserved rights: almost all water rights for their activities
are state granted. A Forest Service official estimated that half of the
service*s water rights are federally reserved. The National Park Service
relies on both federal reserved and state granted rights, depending on the
specific park circumstances.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, as trustee for tribal resources in the
United States, has the primary statutory responsibility for protecting
tribal water rights. The Supreme Court has found that water rights in a
quantity

sufficient to fulfill the purposes of the reservations are implied when
the United States establishes reservation lands for a tribe. 26 Tribes
typically use water rights to ensure water is available for irrigation,
hydropower, domestic use, stockwatering, industrial development and the
maintenance of instream flows for rivers.

Objectives, Scope, To assist congressional deliberations on freshwater
supply issues, we and Methodology

identified (1) the current conditions and future trends for U. S. water
availability and use, (2) the likelihood of shortages and their potential
consequences, and (3) state views on how federal activities could better
support state water management efforts to meet future demands.

To identify the current conditions and future trends for U. S. water
availability and use, we met with federal officials and collected and
analyzed documentation from Reclamation, USGS, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish

and Wildlife Services within the Department of the Interior; the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, Rural Utilities Service,
Agriculture Research Service, Economic Research Service, and Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service within the Department of
Agriculture; the National Weather Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service within the Department of Commerce; the Army Corps of Engineers
within the Department of Defense; the

Federal Emergency Management Agency within the Department of 26 Winters v.
United States, 207 U. S. 564 (1908).

Homeland Security; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. Although rising demands and environmental
pressures have encouraged discussions of market based solutions, we
assumed a continuation of current pricing and quantity allocation
practices in our discussion of supply and demand trends and

water shortages. We analyzed the reports of past federal water
commissions, including the U. S. Water Resources Council, National Water
Commission, and the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission, and
nonfederal organizations, such as the Western States Water Council and
American Water Works Association. We also analyzed National Research
Council,

Congressional Research Service, and our own reports. To determine the
likelihood of shortages and their potential consequences, we analyzed
water shortage impact information from the National Drought Mitigation
Center at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration*s National Climatic Data Center, and from the
states. We did not assess the accuracy of the

various estimates of the economic impacts of water shortages. We obtained
information from Congressional Research Service reports, our own reports,
and analyzed media accounts of water shortages. We obtained the views of
state water managers regarding the likelihood of water shortages using a
Web- based survey of managers in the 50 states.

To obtain states* views on how federal activities could better support
state water management efforts to meet future demands, we conducted a Web-
based survey of state water managers in the 50 states. We developed the
survey questions by reviewing documents and by talking with officials from
the federal agencies listed above and the state water managers in three
state offices* Arizona, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. The questionnaire

contained 56 questions that asked about state water management; collection
and dissemination of state water quantity data by federal agencies;
federal water storage and conveyance within their state; the effects of
federal environmental laws on state water management; the

effects of interstate compacts and international treaties on state water
management; and the effects of federal and tribal rights to water on state
water management.

We pretested the content and format of the questionnaire with state water
managers in Georgia, Florida, Virginia, and Washington. During the pretest
we asked the state managers questions to determine whether

(1) the survey questions were clear, (2) the terms used were precise, (3)
the questionnaire placed an undue burden on the respondents, and (4) the
questions were unbiased. We also assessed the usability of the Web- based
format. We made changes to the content and format of the final
questionnaire based on pretest results.

We posted the questionnaire on GAO*s survey Web site. State water managers
were notified of the survey with an E- mail message sent before the survey
was available. When the survey was activated, an E- mail message informed
the state water managers of its availability and provided

a link that respondents could click on to access the survey. This E- mail
message also contained a unique user name and password that allowed each
respondent to log on and fill out their own questionnaire. To maximize our
response rate we sent reminder E- mails, contacted non- respondents by
telephone, and mailed follow- up letters to non- respondents.
Questionnaires were completed by state water officials in 47 states
(California, Michigan, and New Mexico did not participate) for a response
rate of 94 percent. We performed analyses to identify inconsistencies and
potential errors in the data and contacted respondents via telephone and
E- mail to resolve these discrepancies. We did not conduct in- depth
assessments of the state water official*s responses. A technical
specialist reviewed all computer programs for analyses of the survey data.
Aggregated responses of the survey are in appendix I.

We conducted our work from March 2002 through May 2003 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but Trends Raise
Concerns about

Chapt 2 er Meeting Future Needs No federal entity has comprehensively
assessed the availability and use of freshwater to meet the nation*s needs
in 25 years. While forecasting water use is notoriously difficult,
numerous signs indicate that our freshwater supply is reaching its limits.
Surface- water storage capacity is strained and

ground- water is being depleted as demands for freshwater increase because
of population growth and pressures to keep water instream for
environmental protection purposes. The potential effects of climate change
create additional uncertainty about the future availability and use of
water.

National Water National water availability and use was last
comprehensively assessed in 1978. 1 The U. S. Water Resources Council,
established by the Water

Availability and Resources Planning Act in 1965, 2 assessed the status of
the nation*s water

Use Has Not Been resources* both surface- water and ground- water* and
reported in 1968 Assessed in Decades

and 1978 on their adequacy to meet present and future water requirements.
The 1978 assessment described how the nation*s freshwater resources were
extensively developed to satisfy a wide variety of users and how
competition for water had created critical problems, such as shortages
resulting from poorly distributed supplies and conflicts among users. The
Council has not been funded since 1983.

While water availability shortages have occurred as expected, total water
use actually declined nearly 9 percent between 1980 and 1995, according to
USGS. 3 As figure 13 shows, after continual increases in use from 1960 to
1980, total use began declining in 1980. 1 In its 2002 report to Congress,
USGS described the concepts for a national assessment of freshwater
availability and use. (Report to Congress: Concepts for National
Assessment of Water Availability and Use, Circular 1223, 2002.) 2 Pub. L.
No. 89- 80, 79 Stat. 244 (1965).

3 1995 is the most recent data available; USGS* 2000 national water use
information is not yet ready for publication.

Figure 13: Trends in Water Withdrawals by Use Category, 1950- 1995

Industrial:

Water used for fabrication, processing, washing, and cooling in industries
such as power generation, steel, mining, and petroleum refining.

Million gallons per day 450

Irrigation: 400

Water used to grow crops and pastures, and to maintain parks and

350

golf courses.

300 250 200 150 100

50 Rural: 0

Water used on farms or rural areas, such as drinking water for livestock.

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Total water use is water that is removed from the ground or diverted from
a surface water source for use.

Industrial Irrigation Rural

Public supply:

Public supply Water used for domestic and

commercial uses, such as drinking, bathing, watering lawns, and gardens.
Sources: USGS (chart data and top photo), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (photos), and GAO (analysis).

The reasons for the decrease in actual use illustrate why forecasting
water use is so difficult. According to USGS, most of the increase from
1950 to 1980 was due to expanded irrigation and hydropower generation. In
the

1980s, more efficient irrigation techniques, coupled with new technologies
that lowered industrial use, helped ease demand more than anticipated and
returned more water to the nation*s waterways and aquifers. Water use also
declined because of enhanced public awareness and many states*
conservation programs. Only public supply and rural use, driven by
population growth and livestock needs, respectively, continued to grow
after 1980. Accordingly, a 1999 USDA study found that past water use

projections for 2000 show consistently large differences among the
forecasts and large discrepancies between projected and actual water use
(fig. 14). 4 Key factors influencing some of the excessive projections
include overestimating population increases, not accounting for
technological

advances, not anticipating the introduction of environmental laws, and
underestimating the impact of conservation efforts. 5

4 Brown, Thomas C. 1999. Past and Future Freshwater Use in the United
States: A Technical Document Supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA
Assessment.

5 Various agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, have
programs that provide technical assistance to states, water districts, and
water users for efficiency, conservation, and reuse efforts.

Figure 14: Projections of United States Water Use for 2000

Projected water use for year 2000 ( in billion gallons per day)

1,200 1,000

1,000 888 800

804 600 400

385 341

306 200 0

1961 1968 1973 1978 1989 1995

s r

s st

Select Council

Wate Council

Fore Service

USGS use

ommittee Resource

nal Resource

U. S. Senate C tio

Commission timated Water Na

Water es

Forecaster and year in which the projection was made

USGS estimate for 1995 water use Sources: U. S. Forest Service ( data) ,
USGS (data), and GAO (analysis).

The most recent water use* but not availability* forecast is the USDA*s
1999 projection for 2040, which identifies a rise in total water use of
only 7 percent despite a 41- percent increase in the nation*s population.

However, the agency includes a warning about the tenuous nature of such
projections. For example, irrigated acreage is one of the most important
yet uncertain assumptions in the projection. If irrigated acreage does not
drop in most Western river basins as assumed, use may be substantially
above the estimate. As such, there are compelling reasons for concern
regarding the future availability of freshwater to meet the nation*s
growing demands.

Trends in Water While the nation does not have a current assessment of
water availability

Availability and Use and use, current trends raise concerns about the
nation*s ability to meet future needs. Numerous signs point to the danger
that our freshwater Raise Concerns about

supply is reaching its limits. These indicators include constraints on the
Nation*s Ability to surface storage capacity and depletion of ground-
water resources at the Meet Future Needs

same time as demands for freshwater are on the rise. Increased demand
comes from a growing population and pressures to keep water instream for
fisheries, wildlife habitat, recreation, and scenic enjoyment. The
potential

effects of climate change create additional uncertainty about future water
availability and use.

Surface Storage The construction of large reservoirs in the United States
has slowed Construction

markedly since peaking during the 1960s, as shown in figure 15. and
Maintenance Reclamation has only one large water storage project underway*
AnimasLa

Is Declining Plata in Colorado and New Mexico; the Corps has none.
Furthermore, because of the high cost and ecological impact of reservoirs
and dams, researchers and agency officials generally agree that it is
unlikely that the

construction of such large- scale projects will be at the forefront in
meeting future water needs.

Figure 15: Number and Capacity of Large Reservoirs Completed by Decade

Number of reservoirs

Available evidence also indicates that existing reservoirs may not able to
continue storing water at current levels. Many of the federal and
nonfederal dams that support storage reservoirs are aging and in need of
repair. The American Society of Engineers has rated over 2,000 dams as
unsafe, and nearly 10, 000 as having high hazard potential, according to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency*s fiscal year 2001- 2002 report to
Congress

on the National Dam Safety Program. According to Reclamation officials,
approximately 50 percent of Reclamation*s dams were built before 1950, and
many of these before the development of current engineering standards.
Reclamation recognizes that upgrading and maintaining existing
infrastructure is vital to ensuring dependable supplies of water, and

anticipates that future costs to rehabilitate Reclamation*s infrastructure
will be substantial. The Corps estimates it has a critical maintenance

backlog of $884 million, largely for dredging waterways and repairing
structures such as locks, dams, and breakwaters. While the direct impact
on water supply is not clear, extensive maintenance and repair will be

needed in future years to ensure the continued viability of the water
management infrastructure.

Moreover, the amount of water available for use from these reservoirs is
continually being reduced by sedimentation* the flow of soil, rock and
other natural materials into reservoirs. Over time, sedimentation can
significantly reduce reservoir water storage capacities. According to a
1995 Resources for the Future report, 6 the total reduction resulting from
the buildup of sediment is estimated at about 1. 5 million acre- feet per
year. For example, USGS* reservoir sedimentation studies in Kansas found
that

decreases in water- storage capacity from sedimentation ranged from less
than 5 percent to about 50 percent at various locations.

Ground- Water Is As shown in figure 16, ground- water is a major source of
drinking water Being Depleted

in every state. It provides about 40 percent of the nation*s public water
supply, and more than 40 million people* including 97 percent of the rural
population* supply their own drinking water from domestic wells.

Ground- water is also the source of about 37 percent of the water used for
irrigation and livestock, is a major contributor to flow in many streams
and rivers, and has a strong influence on river and wetland habitats for
plants and animals.

6 Resources for the Future, established in 1952, conducts independent
research on environmental and natural resource issues.

Figure 16: Estimated Percentage of Population Using Ground- Water as
Drinking Water in 1995 by State

Sources: USGS (data) and GAO (analysis).

Ground- water depletion is occurring across the nation. According to USGS,
ground- water depletion may be related to the slowed construction of
surface reservoirs in recent years* as surface- water resources become
fully developed and allocated, ground- water commonly offers the only
available source for new development. USGS has documented significant

ground- water depletion in particular areas of the Southwest; the Sparta
aquifer of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi; the Cambrian- Ordovician
aquifer of the Chicago- Milwaukee area; and the High Plains aquifer
(consisting largely of the Ogallala aquifer). The High Plains aquifer
underlies a 174, 000- square- mile region including parts of eight states
(Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota,

Texas, and Wyoming) and supplies about 30 percent of all ground- water
used nationwide for irrigation.

Ongoing water- level monitoring in the High Plains aquifer provides a
well- documented example of the long- term depletion of ground- water
resources. Ongoing monitoring, initiated in 1988, found that the intense
use of ground- water has caused major declines in the water level and
reduced the ground- water remaining in storage in some areas to a level
that makes the aquifer no longer economical to use. As shown in figure 17,
t he changes are particularly evident in the central and southern High
Plains, where more than half of the ground- water that was available
before pumping

started has been depleted. Through 1999, an estimated 220 million acre-
feet have been removed from storage in the aquifer* or more than half the
volume of water in Lake Erie. Water levels continue to decline in many
areas of the aquifer, but the rate of decline has slowed during the past 2
decades in some areas. The decline is attributed to decreases in irrigated

acreage, improvements in irrigation and cultivation practices, and above-
normal precipitation and groundwater recharge during the period.

Figure 17: Changes in Ground- Water Levels in the High Plains Aquifer from
before Irrigation Pumping to 1999

Approximate location and boundary of the High Plains aquifer.

(A) (A) The High Plains Aquifer is a 174,000

(B)

square- mile area underlying parts of eight states from South Dakota to

Cumulative change in ground- water storage since 1987

Texas. This figure shows changes in

(in millions of acre- feet)

ground- water levels in the High Plains

40

aquifer from before ground- water development to 1997.

20 (B) Shows the cumulative change in

ground- water storage in the aquifer from 1987 to 1999. Through 1999,

0

the total net amount of water removed from storage in the aquifer is
estimated to have been 220 million acre- feet. This

-20

volume of water equals more than half the volume of water in Lake Erie.

-40 -60

1987 1988

1989 1990

1991 1992

1993 1994

1995 1996

1997 1998

1999 Water- level change, in feet Minimal change

Declines Rises

Less than 10- footchange 10 to50

More than 10 50 to100 100 to150

Boundary ofthe High Plains aquifer

More than 150 Sources: USGS (data) and GAO (analysis).

Ground- water depletion has, in some cases, resulted in land subsidence
and a permanent reduction of an aquifer*s water storage capacity.
According to USGS, many areas across the United States have experienced
subsidence, a decline in land- surface elevation caused by the removal of
subsurface support through the withdrawal of ground- water. Subsidence can
severely damage structures such as wells, buildings, and highways,

and creates problems in the design and operation of facilities for
drainage, flood protection, and water distribution. Furthermore, the
compaction of aquifer materials that causes subsidence can result in a
permanent reduction of 10 to 30 percent of the storage capacity of some
aquifer systems. In the arid Southwest, subsidence shows as deep fissures
or *cracks* in the earth*s surface, while in the humid East, subsidence is
evidenced by *sinkholes.* Figure 18 shows a sinkhole in west- central

Florida caused by drilling for a new irrigation well.

Figure 18: Sinkhole in West- Central Florida Caused by Development of a
New Irrigation Well

Orlando Tampa

St. Petersburg

(B) (A) (A)

Development of a new irrigation well in west- central Florida (B)
triggered the sinkhole in the photo above (A). A person (near the white
arrow) stands next to this sinkhole to give an idea as to its relative
size. Sources: USGS (photo and caption), Map Art (map), and GAO
(analysis).

USGS has extensively examined land subsidence in south- central Arizona.
Ground- water pumping for agriculture in the aquifers serving the basins
of south- central Arizona began in the late 1800s, and by the 1940s many
of the basins had undergone intensive ground- water pumping. Ground- water
depletion has been widespread over these basins, as shown in figure 19,
and some water- level declines have exceeded 300 feet. These declines have
resulted in regional subsidence, exceeding 10 feet in some areas.

Figure 19: Land Subsidence in South- Central Arizona

Depleting aquifers in many coastal areas may also result in saltwater
intrusion, making the water unusable for drinking, irrigation, and other
purposes requiring freshwater. According to USGS, incidences of saltwater
intrusion have been documented in almost all coastal states, especially
along the Atlantic coast* affecting areas from Miami, Florida, to Cape

Cod, Massachusetts. In particular, saltwater intrusion is occurring in: 
Florida, in the Jacksonville, Tampa, and Miami areas;  Georgia and South
Carolina, in the Brunswick and Savannah areas, and

on Hilton Head Island, respectively; and  New Jersey, in parts of
Atlantic, Gloucester, Monmouth, Cape May, Ocean, and Salem Counties.

The threat of saltwater intrusion is also present in much of the interior
of the country, where deep saline water underlies the freshwater. For
example, ground- water withdrawals from the alluvial aquifer for
irrigation near Brinkley, Arkansas, have caused upward movement of saline
water from the underlying Sparta aquifer into the alluvial aquifer.

Projected Population The U. S. Bureau of the Census projects substantial
population growth Growth Will Increase

by 2025 in areas of the nation where demand is already stressing the
Freshwater Demands water supply. This growth could threaten the water
supply even further. According to USGS, population growth drives increases
in the use of the

public water supply. 7 Indeed, public use increased by 4 percent while
population increased by 7 percent from 1990 to 1995. The difference in
rates indicates the success of conservation in lowering per- capita use,
from 184 gallons per day in 1990 to 179 gallons per day 1995. Whether
conservation will continue to lower per capita use and at what rate is
unknown.

7 Other factors that influence the demand for water include the price of
water, the price of other goods (such as, the price of energy used in
water pumps and the price of goods produced using water), income, instream
demands for habitat and other ecological needs, and climate.

According to the Bureau of the Census* 1997 projections, net population
change through 2025 will be most evident in three states* California,
Texas, and Florida* each of which is projected to gain more than 6 million
persons. 8 These three states will account for 45 percent of the net
population change in the United States. California, the most populous
state, with 12 percent of the nation*s population in 1995, is expected to
have 15 percent of the nation*s population by 2025. As shown in figure 20,

Western and Southern states will not only have the largest net growth but
will also grow at the fastest rates. California is expected to grow faster
than any other state after 2000, with an estimated 56- percent growth rate
between 1995 and 2025.

8 Net population change is births minus deaths plus net migration.

Figure 20: States* Population Growth from 1995 to 2025

WA NH

ND VT

ME MT MN

OR WI

NY MA

ID SD

WY MI

RI PA

CT NE

IA NJ

NV UT IL

IN OH

DE CO

WV VA

MD CA

KS MO

KY NC TN

AZ OK

AR SC

NM MS

AL GA

TX LA

AK FL

HI

Category percent population growth Number of states in each category

10% or less (6) Between 11% and 30% (29) Between 31% and 50% (10) More
than 50% (5)

Source: U. S. Census Bureau.

Many of the states that are growing the most or at the fastest rates are
also those that are currently stressing freshwater supplies. Figure 21
shows total freshwater use in the United States in 1995, by county, in
million gallons used per day, and illustrates that many of the states that
are expected to grow the most or the fastest* California, Nevada, Arizona,
New Mexico, Florida, and Texas* also include significant areas that are
already using water at among the greatest daily rates in the nation. In
some of these same areas of high water use, the consumptive use of water
nears or exceeds the renewable water supply, indicating that all or most
of the

water that is available is used. For example, according to USGS, in the
Lower Colorado River basin, covering most of Arizona and significant parts
of Nevada and New Mexico, the population consumed 10. 6 billion gallons
per day, but the renewable supply is only 10. 3 billion gallons per day.

Figure 21: Total Freshwater Withdrawals by County, 1995

Million gallons per day

Less than 200 200- 500 500- 3910

Source: USGS.

Western states are already experiencing the effects of this anticipated
growth. For example, due to ongoing population growth and the effects of
recent drought, several Colorado River basin states, such as New Mexico
and Arizona, are demanding that California, one of the biggest users of

Colorado River water, adhere to the 1922 Colorado River Compact. For many
years Southern California had been using Colorado River water that was not
used by the other states, and had come to rely on this water to meet the
demands of its users. After prolonged negotiations, the California users,
such as irrigation and municipal water districts, could not agree on a
plan to reduce their Colorado River water use. As a result, Reclamation
has begun limiting California to its legal entitlement of 4.4 million acre
feet of

Colorado River water annually. State users are continuing to discuss a
potential water- sharing agreement, and stored water is expected to
prevent immediate severe impacts. However, Southern California water users
have begun considering alternative supplies, such as obtaining water from
Northern California water right holders, storing water in surface
reservoirs

and underground aquifers, and building desalination facilities to turn
ocean water into freshwater.

Based on recent media reports, many metropolitan areas in other parts of
the nation are also experiencing the impact of population growth on water
supply. For example:

 Atlanta, Georgia, the fourth fastest growing metropolitan area in the
United States from 1990 to 2000, is recovering from a prolonged drought
and is exploring ways to meet increased demand due to population growth.

 Chicago, Illinois, the seventh fastest growing metropolitan area between
1990 and 2000, has experienced significant ground- water depletion. 
Tampa, Florida, another area experiencing high population growth, began
operating a new desalination plant in early 2003 to produce 25 million
gallons of drinking water daily. This technology is seldom used in the
United States owing to the relatively high cost of

desalting water.  Denver, Colorado, officials have proposed strict water
conservation

measures for 2003 because of anticipated water shortages; measures include
limits on landscape watering and the amount of grass that can be planted
at new homes.

 New York City*s water supply reached its most worrisome levels in more
than 30 years during 2002, resulting in a drought emergency declaration
for the city and four upstate counties. More than 9 million residents
experienced water restrictions. The states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Maine, and New Hampshire also enacted water restrictions.

Growing Demand to Leave Over the past 30 years, the nation has
increasingly emphasized protecting

Water Instream Affects the environment. Among other things, the public
places higher value on

Offstream Availability leaving water instream for endangered species,
recreation, and scenic

enjoyment, which may limit the use of existing water supplies and the
development of new supplies. Federal laws such as the Endangered Species
Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act reflect these environmental values.
However, when water is left instream to protect wetlands, fisheries, and
endangered species or to preserve the wild and scenic status of a river,
it cannot be simultaneously available for traditional offstream uses such
as

irrigation and municipal and industrial supply. Under the Endangered
Species Act, plants and animals may be listed as threatened or endangered,
depending on the risk of extinction. Once a species is listed, powerful
legal tools are available to help the species recover and to protect its
habitat. Implementation of the Endangered Species Act resulted in
immediate challenges for water resource managers. For example, the Tellico
Dam, on the Little Tennessee River was already under construction when
Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act in

1973. Construction of the dam, which provides flood control, hydropower
and water supply, was challenged under the act to prevent jeopardizing the
endangered snail darter* a species of fish. In 1979, Congress specifically
exempted the project from the Endangered Species Act, allowing the

project to be completed. 9 Subsequently, the snail darter was found in
other locations and reclassified as threatened.

More recently, in the Klamath River Basin on the California- Oregon
border, Reclamation*s actions to comply with the Endangered Species Act by
leaving water instream resulted in losses to traditional offstream users.

After consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service about the operation of the Klamath Project in
2001, an acute drought year, Reclamation allocated nearly all the project
water to the protection of endangered species in the Klamath River (Coho
salmon) and the reservoir (two species of sucker fish). While this action
met Reclamation*s obligations under the Endangered Species Act not to
jeopardize any endangered species, Reclamation could not then meet its

contractual water delivery obligations to irrigators, who consequently
experienced crop losses. The potential for future conflicts over the 9
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 96- 69, 93
Stat. 437 (1980).

implementation of the Endangered Species Act is strong as competition
grows between instream and offstream water demands.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides protection for a designated river
or segment by limiting the future licensing of dams, reservoirs and other
water projects on, or adversely affecting, protected segments. 10 Conflict

can arise over how much water should remain in rivers to maintain their
wild and scenic values and over whom should decide the proper amount of
water. Environmentalists and boaters may prefer high, strong flows in wild
and scenic stretches, while others stress the need for water to be
available above and below wild and scenic segments for farming and other
economic

development, potentially reducing flows. For example, in August 2002,
addressing the issue of water in the Salmon River, the Idaho Supreme Court
ordered federal and state officials to participate in formal mediation,
with consultation from environmental, industry and local government
representatives, to determine the quantities of water to be legally
reserved

for all six wild and scenic rivers in Idaho. The court ordered the state
and the Forest Service to reach a compromise on water allocation; if they
do not, the case will be returned to state water court.

Climate Change Makes Uncertainties regarding potential reductions in water
availability also Future Supply and Demand

result from the natural variations of the hydrologic cycle and the
possibility Conditions Uncertain

that greenhouse gasses, such as man- made concentrations of carbon dioxide
and other gasses in the atmosphere, might warm the earth and thereby alter
the cycle. According to the U. S. Global Change Research Program, composed
of federal and nonfederal representatives, water supply conditions in all
regions of the United States are likely to be affected by climate change
in the future, either through increased demands associated with higher
temperatures or changes in supply because of changes in precipitation and
runoff patterns.

A 2002 federal interagency report summarized climate and precipitation
changes for the contiguous United States during the past century and
expected changes over the next century. 11 The report noted that for the
past century, warming amounted to about 1 degree Fahrenheit, and that

10 The National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service,
and Fish and Wildlife Service, all manage designated rivers. 11 U. S.
Department of State, U. S. Climate Action Report 2002, Washington, D. C.,
May 2002.

total annual precipitation increased by an estimated 5 to 10 percent.
While most regions experienced greater precipitation, parts of the upper
Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains had less precipitation. For the next
century, the report noted the following likely changes* average
temperature increases of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit across the nation,
increased precipitation and evaporation, and more frequent occurrences of
unusual warmth and extreme wet and dry conditions.

The U. S. Global Change Research Program, which coordinates federal
agencies* climate research activities, concludes that climate change will
pose many challenges to water supply management in future years. Program
research indicates that changes in the amount, timing, and

distribution of rain, snowfall and runoff are probable, leading to changes
in water availability as well as in competition for water resources.
Precipitation is very likely to continue to increase on average,
especially in the nation*s middle and northern areas, with much of the
increase coming in the form of heavy downpours, which are not as easily
absorbed

for storage in underground aquifers. Snowpack, which serves as natural
water storage in mountainous regions and northern portions of the United
States, gradually releases its water in spring and summer; however,
snowpack is very likely to decrease as the climate warms, despite

increasing precipitation. It is very likely that more precipitation will
fall as rain, and that snowpack will develop later and melt earlier. As a
result, peak stream flows will very likely come earlier in the spring, and
summer flows will be reduced. Potential impacts of these changes include
an increased possibility of flooding in winter and early spring and more
shortages in the summer.

Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the Economy, the Environment,

Chapt 3 er and Communities Freshwater shortages are likely in the near
future and their impact on the economy, environment, and communities may
be severe. 1 Under normal water conditions, state water managers in 36
states anticipate water shortages in localities, regions, or statewide
within the next 10 years. Under drought conditions, 46 state water
managers expect shortages. While no studies have measured the total
economic impacts of shortages, recent shortages have resulted in billions
of dollars in damages to specific segments of the economy, such as
agriculture. Water shortages can also damage plant and animal species,
wildlife habitat, and water quality. Moreover, water shortages can harm
the nation*s social fabric, for example,

by creating conflicts between water users, reducing the quality of life,
and creating perceptions of inequitable treatment among communities due to
varying levels of water availability or relief for water shortage impacts.

State Water Managers Consistent with the water availability and use
trends, state water managers

Expect Shortages expect water shortages in the near future. According to
our survey of state

water managers, 36 of 47 states expect some portion of their state to
within 10 Years experience shortages under average water conditions within
the next 10 years. 2 As shown in figure 22, 18 state managers expect
shortages to occur in one or more localized areas, while 18 state managers
expect

regional or statewide shortages. Water managers indicated that their
states are vulnerable to shortages because they do not always have the
infrastructure to store and distribute water where and when it is needed,
they rely on diminishing ground- water resources, or because population
growth has outpaced existing storage capacity in some regions of the
state.

1 Shortages are at prevailing water prices; we did not consider the
potential effects of changes in water prices for this review. 2 Based on
discussions with state water managers during survey pretests, we asked
managers to use the last 10 to 20 years to determine average water
conditions for their state.

Figure 22: Extent of State Shortages Likely over the Next Decade under
Average Water Conditions

The probability of shortages increases and the effects broaden under
drought conditions. According to 46 of the 47 water managers, their states
are likely to experience shortages within the next 10 years under drought
conditions. Water managers in 6 states predict the shortages to occur in
one or more localized areas within their state, 29 managers predict

shortages in one or more regions in their state, and 11 managers predict
statewide shortages.

States expect these shortages despite their efforts to prepare.
Recognizing the challenges ahead, state water managers reported that
state, regional, and/ or local authorities are planning for their current
and future water needs:

 Drought preparedness and response planning. Twenty- three states have a
drought preparedness plan to reduce drought vulnerability, and 41 states
have a drought response plan to provide assistance to those affected by
drought.

 Assessing and monitoring water availability and use. Forty- four states
are monitoring water availability and use by, for example, measuring
streamflows or water withdrawals.  Implementing water management
strategies. Thirty- eight states are

coordinating the management of surface and ground- water resources to help
meet their current and future water needs.  Reducing or reallocating
water use. Forty states are taking actions

to conserve water, and 15 states are allowing voluntary water transfers
among users, allowing water to be bought and sold or leased.

 Developing or enhancing supplies. Some states are undertaking scientific
or technological approaches* eight western states are using cloud seeding
to increase precipitation within the state, and nine coastal states are
developing saltwater desalination operations to make freshwater.

Freshwater Shortages of freshwater may harm not only a local area, but
also multiple Shortages Have regions and sectors of the economy for many
years. Water shortages can

also damage the environment and create conflicts between water users.
Severe Economic, Environmental, and Social Consequences

Water Shortages Can No estimates are available on the total economic costs
of water shortages

Cause Billions of Dollars in to the nation. However, adequate supplies of
water must be available to Economic Damages

produce goods and provide services, and shortages can create both direct
and indirect problems. For example, shortages reduce crop, rangeland, and
forest productivity; increase fire hazards; increase mortality rates for
livestock and wildlife; and damage wildlife and fish habitat. In 2003,
alone,

Congress provided an additional $3.1 billion in appropriations to offset
agricultural losses. Water shortages also have indirect impacts. For
example, reductions in crop, rangeland, and forest productivity reduces
income for farmers and agribusiness, increases prices for food,
contributes to higher unemployment, increases foreclosures on banks loans
to farmers and businesses, and requires more spending for disaster relief.

While national estimates are not available, regional and state estimates
provide some insight into the severity of water shortages. According to a
2000 report on extreme weather events from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 3 eight water shortages from drought or heat
waves had each resulted in $1 billion or more in monetary losses over the
past 20 years in various states. The more significant of the economic
impacts included were:

$ 6 to $9 billion in losses for the agriculture and ranching sectors of
Texas/ Oklahoma and eastward to the Carolinas in the summer of 1998,

$ 5 billion in economic damages in Texas and Oklahoma from fall 1995 to
summer 1996, 3 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration*s
National Climatic Data Center is responsible for monitoring and assessing
the earth*s climate and is the world*s largest repository of weather data.
The center gathers water shortage related information including economic
impact data.

$ 40 billion in damages to the economies of the Central and Eastern
United States in summer 1988, and $ 20 billion in economic damages to the
Central and Eastern

United States from June to September 1980. River basin commissions and
states also reported recent drought- related economic losses of hundreds
of millions of dollars. For example, the Susquehanna River Basin
Commission, 4 reported that, as a result of the 1999 drought, 34 counties
in New York State declared an agricultural disaster with losses of about
$2.5 billion, and it estimated Pennsylvania crop losses at $500 million,
with some farmers losing as much as 70 to 100 percent of their crops. The
Commission also reported that other

water- dependent industries, such as nurseries, suffered significant
losses and electrical power plants had trouble getting sufficient water
supplies to meet operational needs because of low stream flows. Similarly,
in December 2001, the Washington State Department of Ecology estimated
that the 2001 drought cost between $270 million to $400 million in damages
to agricultural production, a loss of 4, 600 to 7, 500 agricultural jobs,
and

placed at risk an additional 950 to 1, 400 jobs in the food processing,
wholesaling, trucking, warehousing, and transportation services sectors.
Fi nal l y, persi st ent drought condi ti ons coul d al so put at r i sk
anot her 4, 500 t o 6,000 jobs in the construction, retail, and service
sectors, among others. In addition to lost economic productivity, droughts
also increase federal and state government expenditures. For example,
Washington State paid almost $8 million in drought related expenditures to
obtain water for several irrigation districts, maintain stream flow in
critical fish- bearing streams, and to monitor stream flows. In addition,
the state paid $1 million to the Bonneville Power Administration, which
markets electrical power in

the Pacific Northwest, to offset losses in power- generating revenues.
While the most commonly estimated economic impacts of water shortages
occur in agriculture and related sectors, less obvious sectors of the
economy are also affected.

4 The Susquehanna River Basin Commission coordinates water resources
efforts of the states of Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania and the
federal government to administer water resources in the Susquehanna River
Basin.

 In March 2002, New Jersey declared a state of water emergency (rainfall
in 35 of the past 49 months had been below normal, with 8 of the last 12
significantly below normal). Among other things, the state suspended

the distribution of water for construction or use by any new building,
dwelling, or structure in three south New Jersey townships. The pace of
development in these townships threatened to damage the ecological and
water supply capability of the local aquifer system. The monetary losses
resulting from this suspension are difficult to quantify, but, at a

minimum, building suppliers and other construction- related sectors lost
revenues, and local municipalities lost tax revenues.  In February 2003,
the Southern Nevada Water Authority approved a plan

to restrict water use in the Las Vegas Valley during an ongoing drought.
Residents and businesses, such as golf courses, will be required to
curtail water use. For example, golf courses will be required to use no

more than 7 acre- feet of water per year. According to an operator of
three golf courses, he will have to remove 90 acres of grass at an
estimated cost of $500, 000.

Some organizations are developing estimates of the economic impacts of
droughts. For example:  University of Georgia researchers have developed
an economic model

to measure the potential economic impacts of a drought for the 20- county
regional economy in southwest Georgia. Using this model, the researchers
estimated that each $1 million decline in agricultural production results
in an additional $700,000 decline in other economic segments, for a total
loss of $1. 7 million. In addition, for each job lost in agriculture, 1. 4
jobs are lost in other economic sectors, for a total of 2.4 jobs lost.

 Texas requires regional water planning groups t o evaluate t he social
and economic impacts of not meeting regional needs for water supply. For
example, a regional group for Northeastern Texas projected that by 2010
unmet regional water needs would result in 93,000 fewer jobs, 199,000
fewer people, and about a 13 percent loss in personal income.

Based on these regional reports, in 2002, the Texas Water Development
Board reported that if the state does not ensure it has enough water to
meet projected needs, it will have 7. 4 million fewer jobs, 13. 8 million

fewer people, and 38 percent less income within the state by 2050.

Water Shortages Damage Water shortages can result in environmental losses*
damages to plant

the Environment and animal species, wildlife habitat and air and water
quality. Following

a water shortage, some conditions quickly return to normal, while other
effects may linger or change conditions permanently. The Florida
Everglades experience illustrates the effects that reduced water flows can
have on an ecological system.

Following periods of major drought in the 1930s and 1940s and heavy
flooding in 1947, Congress authorized in 1948 the Central and Southern
Florida Project* an extensive system of over 1, 700 miles of canals and
levees and 16 major pump stations* to prevent flooding and saltwater
intrusion into the aquifer underlying the wetlands, as well as to provide
drainage and supply water to the residents of South Florida. Some drained
areas became farmland, while others became heavily urbanized. These
engineering changes, coupled with agricultural and industrial activities
and urbanization, have reduced the Everglades to about half its original
size, as shown in figure 23, and damaged the environment. For example, the
population of wading birds once numbered in the millions, has fallen by 90
percent in recent decades. Moreover, some scientists believe that

the reduced flow of freshwater into Florida Bay may be hastening its
environmental decline. An effort to restore the Everglades is currently
underway involving numerous federal, state, tribal and local entities. The

current estimated costs, which are shared equally by federal agencies and
the state, for activities in the South Florida ecosystem restoration
initiative* including the three goals of getting the water right,
restoring, preserving and protecting natural habitats, and fostering the
compatibility of the built and natural systems* are $14.8 billion.

Figure 23: The Everglades* Past and Present

Location of the Everglades.

Lake Lake

Okeechobee Okeechobee

Past Present

Historically, the natural areas of the Today, the bulk of the natural
areas Everglades extended well north of Lake remaining in the ecosystem
primarily Okeechobee and south to Florida Bay and include the Everglades
National Park and the Gulf of Mexico. Big Cypress National Preserve, as
well as state water conservation areas. a

Natural areas of the Everglades Source: South Florida Water Management
District.

a Other smaller natural areas are dispersed throughout South Florida, such
as national wildlife refuges and state, local, or privately owned lands,
but are not shown in the figure.

Water Shortages Can Cause Water shortages can raise a number of concerns
for communities, such as:

Social Discord  Conflicts arising between various water users, managers,
and

government entities due to competition for scarce water resources; 
Threats to the lifestyles of individuals whose livelihoods depend on

water, such as farmers and commercial fishermen; and  Feelings of undue
burden from a shortage, such as feelings of unfair

treatment in the amount or timing of relief efforts by government
entities. The experiences in the Klamath River Basin, on the California-
Oregon border, illustrate how these concerns can play out. In 2001, severe
drought in the Klamath River Basin exacerbated conflicts among numerous

interests: farmers who rely on water for irrigation, commercial fishermen
who rely on salmon spawned in the river for their livelihood,
environmental groups interested in protecting endangered species, and
Native American tribes with long- standing cultural, fishing and water
rights interests. In

April 2001, Reclamation announced that it would not be able to supply
water to farmers in the majority of the basin so that the limited supplies
could be used to protect endangered or threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. 5 Many farmers claimed to have suffered crop

losses as a result of restricted water deliveries and protested the
decision in public demonstrations; some individuals unlawfully opened
water control gates. Farmers viewed the diversion of water as breaking the
federal government*s long- standing promise to provide water and land for
farming and as harming the agriculture based culture that had developed in
the area since the project was initiated in the early 1900s.

Subsequent to the National Academy of Sciences* February 2002 review of
the scientific support for minimum lake and river flows, Reclamation
developed a 10- year operating plan to comply with the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act while also allowing water deliveries to irrigators.
However, in September 2002 as many as 30, 000 adult salmon and steelhead
died while returning to the Klamath and Trinity Rivers to spawn.
California State Department of Fish and Game officials and others argue
that low

5 Reclamation operates a federal water supply project in the Upper Basin
that has provided water for irrigation to farmers for nearly 100 years.

river flows and high water temperature may have stressed the salmon and
made them more susceptible to disease. Consequently, according to local
media accounts, the environmentalists, Indian tribal leaders, and

commercial fishermen now claim that the government is catering to farmers
and ignoring their concerns (see fig. 24). The result has been on going
litigation over river flows and legislation to address the financial
damages of the various parties. Although the Klamath water supply issues
were made more acute by the severe drought, the conflicts over who gets
water will continue because demands are greater than current supplies.

Figure 24: Competition for Water in the Klamath Basin

(A) In May 2001, supporters of (A)

(B) Klamath Basin farmers

formed a "bucket brigade" by standing shoulder to shoulder and passing
buckets of water from the Link River to a canal used to deliver water for
irrigation.

(B) In April 2002, supporters of providing water for fish and wildlife
within the Klamath Basin advocate their position.

(B)

OR CA

Sources: (A) California Farm Bureau Federation (photo and caption). (B)
Bureau of Reclamation (photos and caption). GAO analysi s.

The competition for water is by no means unique to the Klamath Basin.
Similar conflicts are brewing in other areas, such as the Columbia and
Snake River System in the Northwest, the San Joaquin and Sacramento Basins
in California, the Missouri River System in the Northern Plains states,
the Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico, and the Florida

Everglades. Recognizing the potential for conflict due to water shortages,
in May 2003, Interior proposed concentrating federal financial and
technical assistance in key western watersheds and in critical research
and development such as conservation and desalination to help predict,
prevent, and alleviate future water supply conflicts. 6 6 U. S. Department
of Interior, Water 2025: Preventing Crises and Conflict,

Washi ngt on, D. C., May 2003.

Federal Activities Could Further Support Chapt 4 er State Water Management
Efforts To identify potential federal actions to help states address their
water management challenges, we sought the views and suggestions of state

water managers. We also asked federal officials to identify their current
activities in each of these categories and the extent to which they can
support state preferences for assistance. Water managers from 47 states
ranked actions federal agencies could take within five basic categories of
activities: 1

 Planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining water storage and
distribution facilities. The most helpful potential federal action was to
provide more federal financial assistance to plan and construct additional
state water storage and distribution capacity; states also favored more
consultation on the operation of federal water storage and distribution
systems.

 Collecting and sharing water data. Collecting water data at more
locations would be most useful, compared with actions to improve the
accuracy, timeliness, access, format, or analyses of the data.

 Administering federal environmental protection laws. The most beneficial
potential federal actions were (1) more state flexibility in how they
comply with or administer federal environmental laws and (2) more
consultation with the states on these laws* development, revision, and
implementation.

 Participating in water- management agreements. The highest preferences
were increasing federal agencies* coordination with, and technical
assistance to, the states in developing and implementing these agreements.

 Managing water rights for federal and tribal lands. The most helpful
potential actions were (1) more consultation with states on how federal
agencies or tribal governments use their water rights, (2) increased
financial and technical assistance to determine how much water federal
agencies and tribes are entitled to, and (3) better coordinated
participation among federal agencies and tribes in the establishment and
use of their water rights.

1 State water managers in 47 states responded to our survey; California,
Michigan, and New Mexico did not participate.

Appendix I contains the detailed results of the survey. States Preferred
More

In terms of water storage and distribution capacity, state water managers
Financial Assistance to reported their highest priority was more federal
financial assistance to Increase Water Storage and plan and construct the
state*s freshwater storage and distribution systems. Distribution Capacity
and

According to our survey, over the next 10 years, 26 states are likely to
Consultation on Federal add storage capacity, and 18 are likely to add
distribution capacity. The additional storage and distribution capacity
will be used to meet a variety Storage Operations

of needs, such as augmenting local supplies, connecting water systems, and
developing ground- water storage. Consequently, water managers in 22
states said that more federal financial assistance would be most useful

in helping their state meet its water storage and distribution needs. For
example, of the 26 states that are likely to add storage capacity, 16 plan
to seek federal assistance, as do 14 of the 18 states that are likely to
add distribution capacity. Estimated costs to add this storage and
conveyance capacity could be in the billions of dollars for each state if
built as planned. For example, Texas estimated in its 2002 State Water
Plan the capital costs of water supply projects over the next 50 years,
including the addition of 8 major reservoirs, to be $17. 9 billion.

Reclamation and Corps officials understand the states* need for financial
assistance for storage and distribution projects, and provide financial
assistance on a project- by- project basis, as the Congress authorizes and
appropriates funds. Current authorized and funded water projects include
Reclamation*s Animas- La Plata project in southwest Colorado and northwest
New Mexico for storing and distributing water in these states at a cost of
about $700 million, and the Corps* and the state of Florida*s

participation in the estimated $14. 8 billion effort to restore the
Florida Everglades. Reclamation and Corps officials were not aware of any
state requests directly to them to provide financial assistance to plan or
construct new state storage or distribution projects, with the exception
of projects under the ongoing CALFED program. 2

State water managers also favored more consultation on the operation of
federal water storage facilities. While federal agencies develop plans to
2 In fiscal year 2003, Congress provided $23 million in funding to
Reclamation*s Central Valley Project for activities that support the
California Bay- Delta Restoration Program

(CALFED), including investigations of water storage opportunities and
ongoing reservoir planning activities.

govern the operations of each facility, changes in water availability,
such as a drought, and new or changing demands for water, such as a new
endangered species listing or residential development, can alter the
state*s water management goals in a river basin. State managers sometimes
pursue a change in the operations of a federal water storage facility to
better help the state meet its multiple water management goals. State
water managers in 29 states said they had worked with federal water
project managers within the last 5 years to obtain changes in federal
operations to better meet their state*s water management goals. The state
managers requested changes in federal operations to help balance instream

water uses*- that is, environmental, recreation, hydropower production,
and navigation uses*- with offstream water uses, such as municipal water
supply and irrigation. For example, one western state asked Reclamation to
modify facility operations to benefit fish spawning, while several states
requested changes to Corps facility operations to support the states*
water management goals* for example, to improve water quality, recreation,
and

minimize flooding impacts. Reclamation and Corps officials told us their
agencies currently work with state water managers on a daily basis to meet
the needs of water users affected by their facilities. Furthermore, they
are making efforts to consult more with the states and thereby prevent
future conflicts related to their operations. According to a Reclamation
official, operators at the agency*s facilities annually share operations
plans with state water managers and

other stakeholders to review the previous year*s operations and solicit
their views on the need for changes to meet new or increased demands.
Furthermore, Reclamation plans to identify river basins with the greatest
potential for future conflict between water users and environmental needs
and to develop future operating plans with input from all users. Officials
said they are trying to prevent water management crises on the scale of
those that have occurred in the Klamath, Columbia, Middle Rio Grande, and
Colorado River basins and avoid costly litigation. A Corps* official
stated that the Portland, Oregon, district office holds a daily public
briefing in its reservoir control room to describe conditions in the
entire Columbia Basin, and the Corps shares its operating plans annually
with the states.

While Reclamation and Corps officials welcome state water managers* views
on operations, the agencies are not always able to accommodate state
requests when the request would prevent or limit the agency*s ability to
meet its obligations under laws or contracts. For example, Reclamation
officials said they must consider the authorized purpose of the facility,
the agency*s contractual obligations for water delivery, environmental

regulations, and the requirements of state law when considering a state
request. In addition, federal officials said they could not honor some
requests because modifying facility operations to meet the needs of one
water user may adversely affect water availability for other water users.

For example, Reclamation received a request from one state to change
facility operations to increase water flows for downstream rafting in the
spring; however, another state said the additional release would decrease
the quality of recreational fishing. Once the states agreed on a
compromise, Reclamation modified its releases to meet the water needs of
both users. Corps officials shared similar experiences. For example, a
state requested that the Corps store more water in a flood control
reservoir. The Corps asked the state if it was willing to accept
responsibility for the

environmental impacts of flooding more area behind the reservoir. The
state agreed and the Corps adjusted the annual operating plan. States
Believe They State water managers placed a high value on data collected
under federal Would Benefit from

programs to support the states* ability to complete specific water Federal
Data Collection

management activities. For example: in More Locations

37 states reported that federal agencies* data are important to their
ability to determine the amount of available surface- water,

22 states reported that the federal data are important to their planning
for environmental mitigation or restoration activities, and

14 of t he 29 states that participate in interstate or international
watermanagement agreements reported that federal data are important to
monitoring the terms of the agreements.

To supplement the data collected under federal programs, some states also
collect their own water data. However, in some circumstances, data
collected under federal programs may be more credible and consistent than
the state data, according to state water managers. For example, one state
water manager said his state participates in the USGS Cooperative Program
because other states with which it manages shared waters consider USGS-
collected information more credible than the state- collected information.
Another state manager said that consistent, long- term, federal data
collection is extremely valuable and cannot be replicated by the state.
Furthermore, according to USGS and state officials, state and locally
collected data is not always comparable because collection practices are
not standardized.

Water managers in 39 states ranked expanding the number of data collection
points for federal agencies as the most useful action to help their state
meet its water information needs. Specifically, state managers reported
that the addition of more monitoring stations to measure stream flow,
aquifer levels, and snow pack depths would help states

decide, for example, whether to allow additional water withdrawals from
particular sources. State managers suggested more monitoring locations are
particularly needed in rural areas, where water is shared among multiple
states, or areas needing increased water flows to meet environmental
protection needs. For example, one state manager said more monitoring
stations are needed on the smaller tributaries, where the needs of
endangered or threatened fish are in conflict with traditional

offstream uses. Officials at the USGS, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, and the National Weather Service, each have ongoing efforts and/
or plans to improve their data collection programs. However, they need to
do so within current funding levels. USGS* the agency primarily
responsible for water

data collection and analysis* officials said the agency continually
examines how to allocate its resources to meet its national
responsibilities while also helping states. According to agency officials,
USGS and

the states generally agree on which water sources to monitor; however, the
agency and the states sometimes differ on how many locations to monitor
for a particular source. Disagreement occurs because USGS* monitoring
stations are widely distributed to meet its nationwide responsibilities,
rather than concentrated to benefit a particular state. To meet demand for
more data and more sophisticated water supply forecasts, Natural Resources
Conservation Service officials say they need

to double the current number of snow pack monitoring stations and water
supply forecasting activities. Specifically, the agency has identified the
need to automate and expand reporting on snow pack data in the Great Lakes
and the Northeast, as it does for the West. Finally, officials at the
National Weather Service said they plan to automate rainfall data
reporting, which will make these data more readily accessible, but they
have no plans

to expand data collection locations. According to USGS, Natural Resources
Conservation Service and National Weather Service officials, obtaining
additional funding is their primary barrier to expanding or automating
data collection. To address funding limitations, they have developed
collaborative relationships to accept data from other entities, including
states and universities, and make these data

available to users on their web sites. Because data quality is a concern
under this process, the federal agencies must verify that the entities*
data collection practices meet federal standards before accepting the
data. To help ensure quality, the agencies participate in interagency work
groups that set standards for federal water data collection and
dissemination, such

as the Advisory Committee on Water Information. States Favor More

Federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water
Flexibility in How They Act provide important protections to the nation*s
wildlife and natural Comply with or Administer

resources. The Endangered Species Act provides protection and assists
Federal Environmental

the recovery of threatened or endangered plant and animal species and Laws
and More

their critical habitat, and the Clean Water Act requires improvements to
water quality and the prevention of discharges of pollutants into our
Opportunities for Comment nation*s waters. The implementation of these
laws can also affect state water management goals and objectives. For
example, the Endangered Species Act can create a demand to leave water
instream to ensure that species or critical habitat

are not jeopardized, thus competing with traditional offstream water
demands, such as irrigation, municipal, and industrial uses. When demand
is high among traditional users or supplies are limited, fulfilling the
demands created by federal environmental laws can be challenging for some
state managers.

According to our survey, the impacts of federal environmental protection
laws on state water managers vary, depending on the particular water
demands and uses within each state. For example, while 25 state water
managers reported that the Clean Water Act increased water availability

for instream purposes, managers offered diverse views of the law*s effects
on offstream availability. Managers in 11 states reported that the Clean
Water Act*s water quality impacts increased water availability for
offstream uses, such as drinking water, while managers in 18 states
reported that the

law decreased offstream water availability, for example, because of the
need to leave water instream to maintain water quality standards.
Similarly, 26 state managers reported that the Endangered Species Act
tended to decrease the amount of water available for offstream uses, but
managers were more evenly divided on whether the law has made more water
available for instream uses. For example, managers in 16 states reported
that the Endangered Species Act has helped increase water availability for
instream uses, such as maintaining fish habitat, while 9 managers reported

decreased availability because the law limited water availability for
hydropower production, another instream water use. Overall, 23 state water
managers ranked having more flexibility in how they comply with or
administer federal environmental laws as the most useful among potential
actions that would help states meet the requirements of federal
environmental protection laws while also meeting water management goals.
Because the effects of the laws are so varied, we did not identify a
consensus regarding the specific elements of compliance or administration
of these laws that required more flexibility. However, state water
managers described instances in which they believed that federal
environmental laws restricted the state*s ability to develop new water
storage capacity, distribute water, or meet the needs of offstream users.

Federal officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, agreed that
while they try to accommodate state concerns about federal environmental
laws, the amount of flexibility they can provide is limited by their
obligation to ensure that the laws are complied with and administered as
Congress intended. However, officials cited examples of current and
planned efforts to use the flexibility they have under current law to help
the states comply with or administer federal environmental laws likes the
Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. For example, Environmental
Protection Agency officials said they are assessing ways to make their
water quality programs more efficient and effective, which may result in

more flexibility for the states. National Marine Fisheries Service and
Fish and Wildlife Service officials said they already have considerable
flexibility under the Endangered Species Act to accommodate state-
developed water management plans that also meet the needs of listed
threatened or endangered species. Officials of both the services said they
encourage states to work cooperatively with them to develop water

management plans.

In 17 states, water managers also said they would like federal agencies to
seek more state advice on developing, revising, and implementing federal
environmental laws. Specifically, three state managers made the following
suggestions:

 Congress and federal agencies should seek states* input when
reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act. 3

 Federal agencies should recognize and support states* species recovery
plans; this could help agencies to develop federal recovery plans that are
better coordinated with state activities.  States should peer review
federal agencies* science and decisions, thus

better balancing state and federal viewpoints. Regarding federal actions
to seek more state advice, federal agency officials cited several examples
of ongoing and planned efforts to enhance their working relationships and
reduce conflicts with state agencies and other stakeholders. The Fish and
Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service have existing joint
policies to use the expertise and solicit the participation of states in
the recovery planning process, and to solicit

peer review of draft recovery plans. Agency officials commonly cited the
use of river basin- wide agreements as an example of efforts to formally
bring together state, federal, and other stakeholders to address important

issues, such as providing certainty in water supplies while protecting
wildlife habitats and preventing additional threatened or endangered
species listings or protecting water quality. Officials of several
agencies cited examples of successful cooperative agreements used in the
California

Bay- Delta, Upper Colorado River Basin, Snake River Basin, and in the
Lemhi and Upper Salmon River Basins. According to a Fish and Wildlife
Service official, such agreements signal enhanced efforts at developing
relationships, sharing information, and getting advice from the states.
According to officials, the Environmental Protection Agency hopes to
facilitate cooperative relationships, for example, by awarding grants

to states to explore comprehensive solutions at the watershed level.
Reclamation officials cited planned actions to prevent federal/ state
conflicts regarding environmental issues. For example, the agency plans

3 Endangered Species Act reauthorization has been on the legislative
agenda since authorization expired in 1992, and bills have been introduced
in each Congress to address various aspects of endangered species
protection.

to provide more staff training on the purpose, processes, and requirements
of the Endangered Species Act in order to ensure clarity regarding the
act*s requirements and the agency*s responsibilities.

State Managers Would State water managers in the 29 of 47 states that
participate in an interstate Gain from Improved

or international water- management agreement ranked better coordination
Coordination of Federal of federal agency participation with the state in
the agreements as most

Participation in Interstate useful among potential federal actions to help
states in the development, or International enforcement, and
implementation of such agreements. While many states said that federal
agencies had fulfilled their responsibilities under Water- Management

interstate or international agreements during the last 5 years, seven
state Agreements

managers said that one or more agencies had not. These seven managers, and
others, described instances in which they believe that federal agencies
have not met their responsibilities under water- management agreements,
such as:

 Ignoring obligations under participation agreements, such as the Corps
not paying its river basin commission membership dues.  Mismanaging
existing river management facilities and failing to construct needed water
storage facilities, such as projects for storing

Colorado River water.  Inadequately enforcing the water allocation terms
of international treaties by not vigorously enforcing the terms of

the U. S. water- management treaty with Mexico.  Not resolving federal
river basin priorities, thus creating uncertainty for

state compact participants regarding federal actions. Officials from
Reclamation and the Corps stated that in most cases they have fulfilled
their responsibilities under water- management agreements, but
occasionally circumstances outside their control prevent them from
carrying out their responsibilities. For example, in the case of the Corps
not paying its river basin commission dues, Corps officials indicated that
congressional appropriations language specifies that the federal
government should no longer contribute financially to the annual expenses
of these commissions. A Corps official stated that the agency has little
funding available for efforts to coordinate activities under compacts, and
moreover, other federal agencies have not approached the Corps to engage
in coordination efforts. A Reclamation official acknowledged that he had

encountered barriers to coordination with other federal agencies* for
example, federal agency officials are sometimes unwilling to sacrifice
relationships they have developed with stakeholders in the interest of
improving coordination among all parties. Nevertheless, Reclamation and
Corps officials stated that their participation in water- management
agreements could be improved through their ongoing efforts to enhance
coordination and communication with states and other water resource
stakeholders. For example, Reclamation plans to facilitate meetings and
assist water management projects in basins where the greatest potential
for conflict exists among water users and environmental uses, thus laying
the groundwork for the development of future water- management agreements.
These efforts are similar to those officials described to assist the
states and other stakeholders to allow more input into the operation of
federal storage facilities.

States also ranked as important increased technical assistance to develop
or implement water- management agreements. Of the 29 states in our survey
that already participate in water- management agreements, 11 said they
plan to propose, negotiate, or participate in a new water- management
agreement within the next 5 years. For example, one state manager
suggested federal assistance would be helpful in establishing a compact
for managing water from an underground aquifer with another state. Another
state water manager suggested that the state would benefit from

assistance in the form of federal studies on water availability, use, and
demand on sources shared between the United States and Canada.

Water management agencies do not have specific programs or funds to assist
states in developing or implementing water- management agreements,
according to agency officials. However, Reclamation and Corps officials
pointed out that the federal agencies do assist in implementing agreements
through the ongoing operation of federal water projects within the compact
river basins, helping to ensure that the agreement terms are met. For
example, Corps officials pointed to efforts

by 10 federal agencies to assist in implementing agreements in the
Alabama- Coosa- Tallapoosa and Apalachicola- Chattahoochee- Flint river
basins located in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Furthermore, to help
implement the water management treaty with Mexico, a National Weather
Service official said the agency provides forecasting tools to Mexico to
help facilitate accurate water supply forecasting on both sides of the
border.

States Favored Having More Of the 31 state managers reporting that federal
agencies or tribal Influence on the Use of

governments claim or hold water rights (either state granted or federal
Federal and Tribal Water

reserved) in their state, 12 reported that the most helpful potential
federal Rights as Well as Greater

action would be to consult more with the states on federal or tribal use
of Federal Efforts to Define these rights. Sixteen of these water managers
indicated that their state had

experienced a conflict within the last 5 years between how a federal
agency These Rights used its water rights and the state*s water management
goals. State water managers reported conflicts with 13 different agencies,
such as

Reclamation, the Forest Service, the Park Service, and the Bureau of Land
Management. State managers also described instances of federal agencies
challenging state decisions to grant water rights to others. For example:

 In one state, Reclamation challenged the state over ground- water rights
it had issued to users because the withdrawals threatened federal surface-
water rights.

 Similarly, a tribe sued the same state to stop issuance of ground- water
rights potentially impacting water availability for tribal lands.
According to state officials, both cases were settled by agreement.

 Another manager reported that the state and a federal agency disagreed
on whether a federal lands leaseholder or the federal agency should hold
the water right for water held in small storage facilities on federal
lands. The court awarded the right to the leaseholder, despite federal

concerns over future use of the water on its lands. According to officials
from the federal resource management agencies and Reclamation, the
agencies exercise their state- granted water rights in accordance with
state water laws and the agencies try to coordinate with the states over
their use of water under federal reserved rights. National Park Service,
Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service officials

said their agencies typically seek state- granted water rights for
offstream uses of water on their lands, such as camp and picnic grounds or
livestock watering. Typically, disputes related to federal agency use of
state- granted rights are heard in state water courts where the federal
agencies receive no preference over any other water right holder.
Officials provided several examples of how their agencies work with the
states and non- federal water

users to minimize disputes. A National Park Service official said his
agency seeks to reach mutually acceptable compromises with other water
users, even though the other users* rights are often junior to the federal
reserved rights. A Bureau of Land Management official said while his
agency has federal reserved rights to water in a certain state, the agency
also applies

for state rights because the state does not recognize the agency*s federal
reserved water right.

State water managers also favored increased financial and technical
assistance to states to adjudicate water rights (the determination of the
legal rights and priorities of all persons for a particular source as of a

certain time) for federal agencies and tribal governments. Federal
agencies and tribes may be entitled to water rights that would deprive
others of water they have been using for many years. Until adjudicated or
determined by the courts, the extent of such rights is unknown.
Consequently, water managers, particularly those in Western states, are

concerned about the unquantified water rights for federal and tribal
lands, as well as the costs of quantifying these rights through
adjudication. For example, 14 state water managers said quantifying
federal reserved water rights is important to their state*s ability to
manage its water; similarly,

12 state water managers said quantifying tribal water rights is important.
To reduce uncertainty regarding water rights, some western states are
conducting general adjudications to formally quantify and order by
priority all rights claimed. These adjudications include determinations of
federal water rights, which, since the McCarran Amendment was enacted in
1952, have been within the states* jurisdictions. 4 This process of
establishing the priority system is complicated and costly, and federal
claims are often the largest and most difficult to adjudicate. For
example, according to the Western States Water Council, 400 of the 700
claims being adjudicated in the Klamath Basin are federal claims. While
all other water users claiming rights must pay filing fees to the state
for the adjudication of these rights, the federal government does not,
according to a Supreme Court ruling.

4 Pub. L. No. 82- 495, S:208, 66 Stat. 549, 560 (1952); see chapter 1,
footnote 11, for more information on the McCarran Amendment.

Federal agency officials confirmed that the total quantity of water rights
for federal and tribal lands is not known. While state and federal courts
have settled some federal claims since the McCarran Amendment was enacted,
a substantial majority of tribal and federal water rights have not

yet been quantified. Currently, adjudications of tribal, federal, and
other parties* water rights are underway in many states. 5 For example,
the U. S. Forest Service is participating in 43 adjudications and the
National Park Service in 45, according to agency officials. As of March
2003, the Bureau of Indian Affairs reported it has settled 20 water rights
cases, but

most tribal rights are still unquantified. According to officials, the
federal resource management agencies file claims in accordance with state
rules and abide by the results of the state adjudications. However,
federal law prohibits the agencies from paying adjudication filing fees. A
National Park Service official said it might be preferable to have a
compromise between the two extremes of having the federal government pay
millions of dollars to adjudicate every one of its

water rights and paying nothing. This official notes that adjudications
are in the federal interest* having water rights quantified creates more
certainty for federal planning and decision- making.

Conclusions While states have principal authority for water management,
federal activities and laws affect or influence virtually every water
management activity undertaken by states. With limited supplies and
growing demands, state water managers face the challenge of future water
shortages and their potentially severe consequences. Although the state
managers value the many contributions of federal agencies to their efforts
to ensure adequate water supplies, they also indicate that federal
activities could better support their efforts in a number of areas. In
some of these areas* such as providing funding for more state storage and
distribution capacity or more flexibility in how states comply with
federal environmental laws* federal

agencies are limited in what they can do. However, in other areas* such as
seeking increased state input to federal facility operations or enhancing
coordination with states* more supportive federal actions may not
necessarily involve new authority or significant expenditures. Slight
shifts of federal priorities or renewed emphasis on matters that impact
state

efforts might be sufficient to help states better manage their water 5 For
any water right holder, including federal agencies, participation in
adjudication involves submitting a claim for the amount, location, and use
of water.

resources. The information we collected from state water managers should
be useful to agencies in determining how their activities affect states
and how they can be more supportive of state efforts to meet their future
water needs. While we are not making a specific recommendation, we
encourage Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior,
Corps, and

Environmental Protection Agency officials to review the results of our
state survey and consider modifications to their plans, policies, or
activities as appropriate to better support state efforts to meet their
future water needs.

Agency Comments and We provided copies of our draft report to the
Departments of Agriculture,

Our Evaluation Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Interior; the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The

Department of the Interior concurred with our findings and wrote that the
report provides valuable information to federal agencies for improving
interactions with state water managers and will be helpful to state and
local resource managers in identifying federal activities and plans that
support water management efforts at all levels of government. Interior
also provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated as
appropriate.

Interior*s complete letter is in appendix II. The other departments and
agencies concurred with our findings and provided technical
clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. They did not provide
formal, written comments.

Appendi xes GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal
Activities on State

Appendi I x Water Availability, Management, and Use To obtain states'
views on how federal activities could better support state water
management efforts to meet future demands, we conducted a Web- based
survey of state water managers in the 50 states. We developed the survey
questions by reviewing documents and by talking with officials from the
federal agencies listed on pages 42 and 43 and the state water managers in
three state offices- Arizona, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. The
questionnaire contained 56 questions that asked about state water
management; collection and

dissemination of state water quantity data by federal agencies; federal
water storage and conveyance within their state; the effects of federal
environmental laws on state water management; the effects of interstate
compacts and international treaties on state water management; and the
effects of federal and tribal rights to water on state water management.
To access the Web- based survey and the results for each question go to
GAO- 03- 834SP on the GAO Web site.

Q1. Has your state conducted an assessment of water availability,
withdrawals, and/ or consumption?

Checked Number of (percent) respondents

1. Water availability statewide (most or all regions of your state) 53. 2
47

2. Water availability only for some regions or localities within your
state 29. 8 47

3. Water withdrawals statewide (most or all regions of your state) 76. 6
47

4. Water withdrawals only for some regions or localities within your state
10. 6 47

5. Water consumption statewide (most or all regions of your state) 51. 1
47

6. Water consumption only for some regions or localities within your state
17. 0 47

7. None of the above 8.5 47 Q2. Has your state conducted an assessment,
either for all of your state or for portions of your state, of the
economic and/ or environmental effects of water shortages, including
drought?

Checked Number of (percent) respondents

1. Actual economic effects of recent water shortages, including drought
25. 5 47

2. Potential economic effects of future water shortages, including drought
25. 5 47

Checked Number of

(percent) respondents

3. Actual environmental effects of recent water shortages, including
drought 17. 0 47

4. Potential environmental effects of future water shortages, including
drought 23. 4 47

5. None of the above 53. 2 47 Q3. Which of the following plans does your
state have?

Number Checked of (percent)

respondents

1. Drought preparedness plan( s) 48. 9 47 2. Drought response plan( s) 87.
2 47 3. State does not have either of the above plans 8.5 47

4. Uncertain about state plans 2.1 47 Q4. Did your state receive federal
assistance for the development of its drought preparedness and/ or
response plan( s)?

Number Yes No Uncertain of (percent) (percent) (percent)

respondents

11.9 76. 2 9.5 41 Q5. In the next 1- 10 years which, if any, portions of
your state, are likely to experience water shortages under average water
conditions?

One or more small Entire state

One or more localized (most, or all, regions within areas within

None of the Number of your state) your state your state above Uncertain of
(percent)

(percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) respondents

4.3 34. 0 38. 3 19. 1 4.3 47

Q6. In the next 1- 10 years which, if any, portions of your state, are
likely to experience water shortages under drought conditions?

One or more small Entire state

One or more localized (most, or all, regions within areas within

None of the Number of your state) your state your state above Uncertain of
(percent)

(percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) respondents

23.4 61. 7 12. 8 0.0 2.1 47 Q7. In the next 10- 20 years which, if any,
portions of your state, are likely to experience water shortages under
average water conditions?

One or more small Entire state

One or more localized (most, or all, regions within areas within

None of the Number of your state) your state your state above Uncertain of
(percent)

(percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) respondents

4.3 44. 7 34. 0 12. 8 4.3 47 Q8. In the next 10- 20 years which, if any,
portions of your state, are likely to experience water shortages under
drought conditions?

One or more small Entire state

One or more localized (most, or all, regions within areas within

None of the Number of your state) your state your state above Uncertain of
(percent)

(percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) respondents

25.5 68. 1 4.3 0.0 2.1 47

Q9. Which, if any, of the following actions are being taken by your state
government and/ or by regional or local authorities to address current and
future water needs in your state?

Number Checked of (percent)

respondents

1. Developing markets to allow voluntary water transfers among users 31. 9
47

2. Developing new water supplies through reuse of reclaimed water 48. 9 47

3. Developing new water supplies through recycling of storm water 10. 6 47

4. Developing new water supplies using desalination (seawater or brackish
ground water) 19. 1 47

5. Encouraging, requiring, and/ or providing incentives for water
conservation 85. 1 47

6. Improving vegetation management along streams and rivers to increase
stream flow 42. 6 47

7. Improving riparian buffers to enhance water quality and increase water
quantity 70. 2 47

8. Increasing storage capacity, including surface storage reservoirs or
artificial groundwater recharge 63. 8 47 9. Managing surface and ground
water together (conjunctive management) so that these sources

can be used in combination or alternately 80. 9 47 10. Monitoring water
availability and withdrawals within the state 93. 6 47

11. Pursuing water price restructuring 29. 8 47 12. Requiring local water
agencies to conduct water availability assessments before approving new
development or changes in land use 29. 8 47

13. Using cloud seeding to induce precipitation where it might not occur
naturally, or in greater quantities than might occur naturally 17. 0 47
14. Using inter- basin transfer of water 59. 6 47 15. Other actions being
taken to address water needs (Please specify below.) 34. 0 47

If answer 15 is checked (in Q9 above), please provide a brief description
(of other actions being taken to address your state's water needs).

Providing Number description of (percent)

respondents

100 16

Q10. In general, what is the legal doctrine used by your state to govern
the allocation of surface water?

A combination State does not of prior

regulate Prior Common- law

Regulated appropriation

surface water Number appropriation riparian riparian and riparian
allocation Other Uncertain of

(percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) (percent) respondents

31.9 14. 9 19. 1 6.4 4.3 21.3 2.1 47 If 'other' is checked (in Q10 above),
please describe how your state governs the allocation and use of surface
water.

Providing Number description of (percent)

respondents

100 10 Q11. In general, what is the legal doctrine used by your state to
govern the allocation of ground water?

State does not regulate Correlative Reasonable

Prior Absolute ground water

Number rights use appropriation ownership allocation Other Uncertain of
(percent)

(percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

respondents

6.4 38. 3 25. 5 2.1 6.4 19.1 2.1 47 If 'other' is checked (in Q11 above),
please describe how your state governs the allocation and use of ground
water.

Providing Number description of (percent)

respondents

100 9

Q12. Overall, about how much of your state's data on water availability
and withdrawals is provided by federal agencies?

All or almost Number Little or none Less than half About half More than
half all Uncertain of (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) respondents

a. Data on ground water availability 26. 7 40. 0 11. 1 11. 1 11.1 0.0 45

b. Data on ground water withdrawals 59. 6 27. 7 4.3 8.5 0.0 0.0 47

c. Data on surface water availability 13. 0 10. 9 28. 3 30. 4 15.2 2.2 46

d. Data on surface water withdrawals 63. 8 21. 3 6.4 6.4 2.1 0.0 47

Q13. Please provide the name( s) of the federal agency( ies) that provide
water availability and/ or withdrawal data to you.

Provided agency

Number name( s) of (percent)

respondents

89.4 47

Q14. Overall, how important are data provided by federal agencies to your
state's ability to complete each of the following activities?

Equally Very Somewhat

important and Somewhat

Very Number important important unimportant unimportant unimportant of
(percent)

(percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent)

respondents

a. To determine the quantity of available ground water 34. 9 34. 9 16. 3
9.3 4.7 43 b. To determine the quantity of ground water withdrawals 13. 2
15. 8 18. 4 28.9 23.7 38

c. To determine the quantity of available surface water 53. 3 28. 9 13. 3
0.0 4.4 45 d. To determine the quantity of surface water withdrawals 8.1
18. 9 21. 6 27.0 24.3 37

e. To determine the quantity of consumptive water use 10. 3 12. 8 25. 6
25.6 25.6 39 f. To assess the economic effects of water withdrawals 3.8
15. 4 23. 1 23.1 34.6 26

g. To assess the environmental effects of water withdrawals 17. 5 32. 5
15. 0 25.0 10.0 40

h. To plan environmental mitigation or restoration 27. 0 32. 4 18. 9 16.2
5.4 37 i. To monitor the terms of water allocation agreements that
distribute water among multiple

parties (such as states) 35. 5 22. 6 6.5 12.9 22.6 31 Q15. What type( s)
of water quantity data, not currently being collected by the federal
government, would be most useful in helping your state with its water
management?

Providing Number answer of (percent)

respondents

74.5 47

Q16. Which actions, with respect to federal collection and dissemination
of data, would be most useful to your state? Rank each of the following
actions from most useful (1st) to least useful (6th).

Number of Mean Ranking

respondents

a. Collect data at more locations 1.3 45 b. Improve the accuracy of data
currently being collected 3.8 45

c. Improve the timeliness of dissemination 3.3 45

d. Improve access to data previously collected (for example, historical)
3.8 45 e. Provide data in a more usable format 4.4 45

f. Provide more analyses of data 4.3 45 Q17. Are there other actions
federal agencies could take to improve their collection and dissemination
of water quantity data?

Providing Number answer of (percent)

respondents

57.4 47 Q18. How much of your state's water is stored using facilities
constructed, operated, or maintained by the federal government?

All or almost Number Little or none Less than half About half More than
half all Uncertain of (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) respondents

36.2 23. 4 8.5 25. 5 2.1 4.3 47 Q19. How likely is it that your state will
add storage capacity within the next 10 years?

Somewhat Equally likely

Somewhat Number Very likely likely and unlikely unlikely Very unlikely
Uncertain of (percent)

(percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) (percent) respondents

36.2 19. 1 10. 6 12. 8 21. 3 0.0 47 Q20. Has your state estimated the cost
to add storage capacity?

Number Yes No Uncertain of (percent) (percent) (percent)

respondents

27.7 57. 4 14. 9 47

Q21. Does your state plan to seek federal assistance for the addition of
storage capacity?

Number Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no Uncertain of
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

respondents

23.9 30. 4 23. 9 4.3 17. 4 46 Q22. What activities have federal agencies
participated in during the past 5 years with respect to non- federal
storage infrastructure in your state?

Number Checked of (percent)

respondents

1. Planning of facilities 29. 8 47 2. Reviewing plans for facilities 29. 8
47 3. Operating and/ or maintaining facilities 17. 0 47

4. Constructing facilities 12. 8 47 5. None of these activities 31. 9 47
6. Uncertain 23. 4 47

Q23. Within the last 5 years, has your state requested that a federal
agency modify its operation of a federal storage facility to better meet
the state's water management goals?

Our state does not have any federal

Yes, many Yes, a few Yes, but only storage

Number times times once or twice No facilities Uncertain of (percent)

(percent) (percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) respondents

23.4 23. 4 14. 9 23. 4 8.5 6.4 47 If 'yes' is checked (in Q23 above),
please provide some examples of the types of changes requested and the
agencies that you requested make the changes.

Providing Number examples of (percent)

respondents

86.2 29

Q24. How much of your state's water is conveyed using facilities (for
example, an aqueduct or canal) constructed, operated, or maintained by the
federal government?

All or almost Number Little or none Less than half About half More than
half all Uncertain of (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) respondents

68.1 19. 1 2.1 8.5 0.0 2.1 47 Q25. How likely is it that your state will
add conveyance capacity within the next 10 years?

Somewhat Equally likely

Somewhat Number Very likely likely and unlikely unlikely Very unlikely
Uncertain of (percent)

(percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) (percent) respondents

25.5 12. 8 2.1 10. 6 36. 2 12.8 47 Q26. Has your state estimated the cost
to add conveyance capacity?

Number Yes No Uncertain of (percent) (percent) (percent)

respondents

19.1 74. 5 6.4 47 Q27. Does your state plan to seek federal assistance for
the addition of conveyance capacity?

Number Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no Uncertain of
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

respondents

19.1 12. 8 40. 4 6.4 21. 3 47 Q28. What activities have federal agencies
participated in during the past 5 years with respect to non- federal
conveyance infrastructure in your state?

Number Checked of (percent)

respondents

1. Planning of facilities 29. 8 47 2. Reviewing plans for facilities 31. 9
47 3. Operating and/ or maintaining facilities 4.3 47

4. Constructing facilities 10. 6 47 5. None of these activities 44. 7 47
6. Uncertain 17. 0 47

Q29. Has the lack of maintenance (e. g., repair or rehabilitation) of
federal storage or conveyance facilities reduced water availability in
your state within the last 5 years? Our state

does not have any federal storage or Yes, many Yes, a few

Yes, but only conveyance Number times times once or twice No facilities
Uncertain of (percent)

(percent) (percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) respondents

6.4 0.0 8.5 53. 2 14. 9 17.0 47 If 'yes' is checked (in Q29 above), please
provide example( s) of poor maintenance and how it affected water
availability in your state.

Providing Number examples of (percent)

respondents

85.7 7 Q30. Which actions would be most useful in helping your state meet
its water management goals with respect to the storage and conveyance of
water? Rank each of the following actions from most useful (1st) to least
useful (6th).

Number of Mean Ranking

respondents

a. Improve the maintenance of federal facilities 4.8 44 b. Increase
federal technical assistance for the planning, construction, operation, or
maintenance of state storage and conveyance infrastructure 3.5 44

c. Increase federal financial assistance for the planning and construction
of state storage and conveyance infrastructure 1.9 44 d. Increase federal
financial assistance for the operation and maintenance of state storage
and conveyance infrastructure 3.4 44

e. Seek more state input in operation of federal storage facilities 3.4 44

f. Streamline federal review processes of proposed state storage and
conveyance facilities 4.0 44

Q31. Are there other actions federal agencies could take to improve their
participation in the planning, review, construction, operation, and/ or
maintenance of federal water storage and conveyance infrastructure?

Providing Number answer of (percent)

respondents

44.7 47 Q32. What effect has each of the federal laws listed below had on
water availability, for in- stream purposes, in your state within the past
5 years?

Greatly Somewhat

Somewhat Greatly increased

increased Had no effect

decreased decreased water

water on water

water water

Number availability availability availability availability availability
Uncertain of (percent)

(percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) (percent)

respondents

a. Clean Water Act 14. 9 38. 3 29. 8 6.4 0.0 10.6 47

b. Coastal Zone Management Act 2.5 15. 0 65. 0 2.5 0.0 15.0 40

c. Endangered Species Act 0.0 34. 0 27. 7 14. 9 4.3 19.1 47 d. Federal
Power Act 2.2 24. 4 33. 3 15. 6 0.0 24.4 45

e. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 0.0 21. 7 37. 0 8.7 2.2 30.4 46

f. Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act 0.0 7.3 56. 1 7.3 0.0 29.3 41

g. Safe Drinking Water Act 6.4 19. 1 44. 7 14. 9 0.0 14.9 47

h. Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts 0.0 10. 9 56. 5 6.5 4.3 21.7 46

i. Wilderness Act 0.0 2.2 68. 9 2.2 2.2 24.4 45

Q33. What effect has each of the federal laws listed below had on water
availability, for off- stream purposes, in your state within the past 5
years?

Greatly Somewhat

Somewhat Greatly increased

increased Had no effect

decreased decreased water

water on water

water water

Number availability availability availability availability availability
Uncertain of (percent)

(percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) (percent)

respondents

a. Clean Water Act 6.5 17. 4 23. 9 37. 0 2.2 13.0 46

b. Coastal Zone Management Act 0.0 7.7 64. 1 10. 3 0.0 17.9 39

c. Endangered Species Act 0.0 2.2 26. 1 50. 0 6.5 15.2 46 d. Federal Power
Act 0.0 8.9 40. 0 22. 2 0.0 28.9 45

e. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 0.0 2.3 32. 6 30. 2 2.3 32.6 43

f. Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act 0.0 4.9 56. 1 7.3 2.4 29.3 41

g. Safe Drinking Water Act 8.7 19. 6 43. 5 10. 9 2.2 15.2 46

h. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 0.0 2.3 52. 3 18. 2 4.5 22.7 44

i. Wilderness Act 0.0 0.0 66. 7 2.4 2.4 28.6 42

Q34. Which actions would be most useful in helping your state fulfill the
requirements of federal environmental laws while meeting its water
management goals? Rank each of the following actions from most useful
(1st) to least useful (4th).

Number of Mean Ranking

respondents

a. Charge for the use of water from federal storage and conveyance
facilities and use funds to help mitigate damage to environment from
projects 4.0 46

b. Give the states more flexibility in compliance or administration of
federal environmental laws 1.8 46

c. Improve coordination among federal agencies in implementing
environmental laws 2.5 46 d. Seek more state input into development,
revision and implementation of federal environmental laws 1.8 46

Q35. Are there other actions federal agencies could take to help your
state fulfill the requirements of federal environmental laws?

Providing Number answer of (percent)

respondents

40.4 47 Q36. Does your state participate in an interstate compact or
international treaty to allocate water among multiple parties?

Number Yes No Uncertain of (percent) (percent) (percent)

respondents

61.7 36. 2 2.1 47 Q37. About how much of your state's water is affected by
an interstate compact and/ or international treaty?

All or almost Number Little or none Less than half About half More than
half all Uncertain of (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) respondents

20.7 44. 8 0.0 31. 0 3.4 0.0 29

Q38. Within the last 5 years, have any federal agencies participated in
the development, implementation or enforcement of an interstate compact
affecting water availability in your state?

Number Checked of (percent)

respondents

1. Federal agency or agencies have participated in the development of an
interstate compact( s) 17. 2 29 2. Federal agency or agencies have
participated in the implementation of an interstate compact( s) 58. 6 29
3. Federal agency or agencies have participated in the enforcement of an
interstate compact( s) 31. 0 29 4. None of the above 17. 2 29 Q39. Within
the last 5 years, have any federal agencies participated in the
development, implementation or enforcement of an international treaty
affecting water availability in your state?

Number Checked of (percent)

respondents

1. Federal agency or agencies have participated in the development of an
international treaty( ies) 13. 8 29 2. Federal agency or agencies have
participated in the implementation of an international treaty( ies) 27. 6
29 3. Federal agency or agencies have participated in the enforcement of
an international treaty( ies) 27. 6 29 4. None of the above 55. 2 29 Q40.
Within the last 5 years, have federal agencies participating in the
development, implementation, or enforcement of an interstate compact( s)
and/ or international treaty( ies) affecting water allocation fulfilled
their responsibilities?

One or more agencies have All agencies

not fulfilled have fulfilled all

their Number responsibilities responsibilities Uncertain of

(percent) (percent) (percent)

respondents

50.0 26. 9 23. 1 26 If 'one or more agencies' is checked (in Q40 above),
please specify the agency( ies) and briefly describe how often
responsibilities have not been fulfilled.

Providing Number answer of (percent)

respondents

100 7

Q41. Does your state plan to propose, negotiate, or participate in a new
interstate compact or international treaty within the next 5 years?

Number Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no Uncertain of
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

respondents

13.8 24. 1 37. 9 13. 8 10. 3 29 Q42. Which actions would be most useful in
helping your state with respect to the development, enforcement, and
implementation of interstate compacts and international treaties? Rank
order each of the following actions from most useful (1st) to least to the
least useful (6th).

Number of Mean Ranking

respondents

a. Better coordinate federal participation with the state 2.6 28

b. Better coordinate participation among federal agencies 2.8 28 c. Create
a market- based allocation system for water shared by states 5.3 28

d. Develop alternative tools for resolving water allocation conflicts
among states 3.0 28

e. Increase technical assistance to assist the states with development or
implementation 2.8 28

f. Make it easier to amend or revise existing agreements 4.5 28

Q43. Are there other actions that would be useful in helping your state
with respect to the development, enforcement, and implementation of
interstate compacts and international treaties?

Providing Number answer of (percent)

respondents

41.4 29 Q44. Do any federal agencies hold or claim water rights in your
state?

Number of Yes No Uncertain

respondents

51.1 31. 9 17. 0 47

Q45. Currently, about how much of your state's water is allocated to
fulfill federal water rights?

All or almost Number Little or none Less than half About half More than
half all Uncertain of (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) respondents

50.0 37. 5 0.0 4.2 0.0 8.3 24 Q46. If all federal claims to water in your
state were quantified, about how much of your state's water would be
allocated to fulfill these rights?

All or almost Number Little or none Less than half About half More than
half all Uncertain of (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) respondents

37.5 29. 2 4.2 4.2 4.2 20.8 24 Q47. How important is the quantification of
federal water rights to your state's ability to manage its water?

Equally Very Somewhat important and

Somewhat Very Number important important unimportant unimportant
unimportant Uncertain of (percent)

(percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) (percent)

respondents

29.2 29. 2 12. 5 12. 5 16. 7 0.0 24 Q48. Within the last five years, has
your state experienced any conflict between how a federal agency employed
its water rights and your state's water management goals?

No, our state has not Yes, many Yes, a few

Yes, but only experienced Number times times once or twice any conflict
Uncertain of (percent)

(percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) respondents

13.6 40. 9 18. 2 27. 3 0.0 22 If 'yes' is checked (in Q48 above), please
specify the agency( ies).

Providing Number answer of (percent)

respondents

93.8 16

Q49. Do any tribal governments hold or claim water rights in your state?

Number Yes No Uncertain of (percent) (percent) (percent)

respondents

52.2 41. 3 6.5 46 Q50. Currently, about how much of your state's water is
allocated to fulfill tribal water rights?

All or almost Number Little or none Less than half About half More than
half all Uncertain of (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) respondents

73.9 26. 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 Q51. If all tribal claims to water in your
state were quantified, about how much of your state's water would be
allocated to fulfill these rights?

All or almost Number Little or none Less than half About half More than
half all Uncertain of (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) respondents

45.8 25. 0 0.0 4.2 4.2 20.8 24 Q52. How important is the quantification of
tribal water rights to your state's ability to manage its water?

Equally Very Somewhat important and

Somewhat Very Number important important unimportant unimportant
unimportant Uncertain of (percent)

(percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) (percent)

respondents

37.5 12. 5 12. 5 8.3 25. 0 4.2 24 Q53. Within the last five years, has
your state experienced any conflict between how a tribal government
employed its water rights and the state's water management goals?

No, our state has not Yes, many Yes, a few

Yes, but only experienced Number times times once or twice any conflict
Uncertain of (percent)

(percent) (percent)

(percent) (percent) respondents

4.3 26. 1 21. 7 39. 1 8.7 23 If 'yes' is checked (in Q53 above), please
specify the tribal government( s).

Writing Number comment of (percent)

respondents

83.3 12

Q55. Which actions would be most useful in helping your state fulfill
federal and tribal rights to water while meeting your state's water
management goals? Rank each of the following actions from most useful
(1st) to least useful (6th).

Number of Mean Ranking

respondents

a. Better coordinate participation among federal agencies in the
establishment and use of federal or tribal water rights 3.0 25

b. Clarify federal policy on tribal governments' authority to sell water
rights 4.1 25

c. Improve the efficiency of water use, including increasing conservation
when applicable, on federal and tribal lands 4.7 25

d. Increase financial and technical assistance to states for adjudication
of federal and tribal water rights 2.9 25

e. Seek more state input into the use of federal or tribal water rights
and potential effects on state water management goals 2.2 25

f. Streamline federal processes to quantify federal or tribal water rights
4.1 25

Q56. Are there other actions that federal agencies could take to help your
state fulfill federal and tribal rights to water while meeting your
state's water management goals?

Providing Number answer of (percent)

respondents

38.7 31 Additional Comments: If you would like to make additional comments
concerning any topic related to water availability, management, or use,
please feel free to do so in the space provided.

Providing Number answer of (percent)

respondents

36.2 47 Note: Question 54 was not included because it was used only for
navigation purposes in the Web- based questionnaire.

Comments from the Department of

Appendi I I x the Interior

Appendi I I I x GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Barry
T. Hill (202) 512- 3841 Keith Oleson (415) 904- 2218 Acknowledgments In
addition to those named above, Brad Dobbins, Elizabeth Fan, John

Kalmar, Katherine Kousser, Janet Lewis, and Lynn Musser made key
contributions to this report. Also contributing to the report were Charles
Bausell, Robert Crystal, Kim Raheb, Carol Shulman, and Don Yamada.

(360185)

GAO*s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and
other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and
funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to good government is reflected in its
core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost is

through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext GAO Reports and files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older

Testimony products. The Web site features a search engine to help you
locate documents

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov
and select *Subscribe to e- mail alerts* under the *Order GAO Products*
heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to
a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: U.
S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061 To Report Fraud, Contact: Waste, and Abuse in

Web si te: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@ gao.
gov Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202)
512- 4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D. C. 20548

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

National water availability and use has not been comprehensively assessed
in 25 years, but current trends indicate that demands on the nation*s
supplies are growing. In particular, the nation*s capacity for storing
surface- water is limited and ground- water is being depleted. At the same
time, growing population and pressures to keep water instream for
fisheries and the environment place new demands on the freshwater supply.
The potential effects of climate change also create uncertainty about
future water availability and use.

State water managers expect freshwater shortages in the near future, and
the consequences may be severe. Even under normal conditions, water
managers in 36 states anticipate shortages in localities, regions, or
statewide in the next

10 years. Drought conditions will exacerbate shortage impacts. When water
shortages occur, economic impacts to sectors such as agriculture can be in
the billions of dollars. Water shortages also harm the environment. For
example, diminished flows reduced the Florida Everglades to half its
original size. Finally,

water shortages cause social discord when users compete for limited
supplies. State water managers ranked federal actions that could best help
states meet their water resource needs. They preferred: (1) financial
assistance to increase storage and distribution capacity; (2) water data
from more locations; (3) more flexibility in complying with or
administering federal environmental laws; (4) better coordinated federal
participation in water- management agreements; and (5) more consultation
with states on federal or tribal use of water rights. Federal officials
identified agency activities that support state preferences.

While not making recommendations, GAO encourages federal officials to
review the results of our state survey and consider opportunities to
better support state water management efforts. We provided copies of this
report to the seven departments and agencies discussed within. They
concurred with our findings and provided technical clarifications, which
we incorporated as appropriate.

Extent of State Shortages Likely over the Next Decade under Average Water
Conditions

The widespread drought conditions of 2002 focused attention on a critical
national challenge: ensuring a sufficient freshwater supply to sustain
quality of life and economic growth. States have primary responsibility
for managing the allocation and use of water resources, but multiple
federal agencies also play a role. For example, Interior*s Bureau of
Reclamation operates numerous water storage facilities, and the U. S.
Geological Survey collects

important surface and groundwater information.

GAO was asked to determine the current conditions and future trends for U.
S. water availability and use, the likelihood of shortages and their
potential consequences,

and states* views on how federal activities could better support state
water management efforts to meet future demands. For this review, GAO
conducted

a web- based survey of water managers in the 50 states and received
responses from 47 states; California, Michigan, and New Mexico did not
participate. FRESHWATER SUPPLY

States* Views of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the Challenges
of Expected Shortages

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 514. To view the full report,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Barry Hill at (202) 512- 9775 or hillb@ gao. gov.
Highlights of GAO- 03- 514, a report to Congressional Requesters

July 2003

Page i GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Contents

Page ii GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Contents

Page iii GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Contents Page iv GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Page 1 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply United States General Accounting
Office Washington, D. C. 20548

Page 1 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

A

Letter

Letter Page 2 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Page 3 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Executive Summary Page 4 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Executive Summary Page 5 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Executive Summary Page 6 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Executive Summary Page 7 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Executive Summary Page 8 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Executive Summary Page 9 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Executive Summary Page 10 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Executive Summary Page 11 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Page 12 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 13 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 14 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 15 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 16 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 17 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 18 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 19 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 20 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 21 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 22 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 23 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 24 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 25 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 26 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 27 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 28 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 29 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 30 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 31 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 32 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 33 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 34 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 35 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 36 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 37 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 38 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 39 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 40 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 41 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 42 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1 Introduction

Page 43 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Page 44 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 45 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 46 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 47 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 48 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 49 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 50 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 51 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 52 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 53 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 54 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 55 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 56 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 57 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 58 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 59 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 60 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 61 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 62 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2 Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, but
Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs

Page 63 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Page 64 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the Economy, the
Environment, and Communities

Page 65 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 3 Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the Economy, the
Environment, and Communities

Page 66 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 3 Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the Economy, the
Environment, and Communities

Page 67 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 3 Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the Economy, the
Environment, and Communities

Page 68 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 3 Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the Economy, the
Environment, and Communities

Page 69 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 3 Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the Economy, the
Environment, and Communities

Page 70 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 3 Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the Economy, the
Environment, and Communities

Page 71 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 3 Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the Economy, the
Environment, and Communities

Page 72 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 3 Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the Economy, the
Environment, and Communities

Page 73 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 3 Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the Economy, the
Environment, and Communities

Page 74 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 3 Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the Economy, the
Environment, and Communities

Page 75 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Page 76 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water Management
Efforts

Page 77 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 4 Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water Management
Efforts

Page 78 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 4 Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water Management
Efforts

Page 79 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 4 Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water Management
Efforts

Page 80 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 4 Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water Management
Efforts

Page 81 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 4 Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water Management
Efforts

Page 82 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 4 Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water Management
Efforts

Page 83 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 4 Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water Management
Efforts

Page 84 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 4 Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water Management
Efforts

Page 85 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 4 Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water Management
Efforts

Page 86 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 4 Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water Management
Efforts

Page 87 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 4 Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water Management
Efforts

Page 88 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 4 Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water Management
Efforts

Page 89 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Page 90 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Appendix I

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 91 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 92 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 93 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 94 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 95 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 96 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 97 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 98 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 99 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 100 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 101 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 102 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 103 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 104 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 105 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 106 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 107 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Appendix I GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal Activities
on State

Water Availability, Management, and Use Page 108 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater
Supply

Page 109 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Appendix II

Page 110 GAO- 03- 514 Freshwater Supply

Appendix III

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard Postage & Fees Paid

GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***